What's new? Product updates from Intruder September 2023
Intruder’s list of integrations continues, adding internal targets is now much more intuitive, and remediation scans are live! Watch our video for the latest product updates:
Add Internal targets to Intruder with ease
Adding internal targets in Intruder has been completely revamped. We have updated the entire 'add target' flow (cloud, external, and internal) UI with our new design system.
Add tags when adding an internal target to keep them organized in a way that suits you. Then, once a target is added you can easily see its status in your targets list.
Read more about internal target improvements here.
Check your fixes faster with remediation scans
Running an entire scan to check your fix on one vulnerability isn’t efficient. That’s why we’ve introduced remediation scans. Running an average of 65% faster than a full scan, remediation scans look at a specific vulnerability on associated targets to understand whether you've been successful in closing the gap in your security. This gives you immediate feedback on remediation efforts.
Feature spotlight - Integrations
Simplicity without compromising security is our goal, so we’ve built a number of integrations that help Intruder plug in to your existing vulnerability management processes and infrastructure more generally. Allowing you to work smarter while being more secure. If you’re not using them already, here is a quick summary of our favorite integrations:
- Integrate your cloud environments for continuous visibility across your cloud. Intruder checks for new services every 2 hours and you can set up automated vulnerability scans on new targets.
- New issues can be pushed to ticketing systems – like Jira, Github, and Azure DevOps – once they're discovered, allowing you to close the loop in your CI/CD pipeline for security while you build.
- Instead of email notifications, you can get instant notifications to Teams and/or slack that alert you of new vulnerabilities, emerging threats and scan statuses so you can stay informed without logging in to the platform.
What’s next on the roadmap?
We are making fundamental improvements to our authentication workflow. Once released (coming very soon), you’ll be able to:
- Quickly see the status of an authentication with a screenshot.
- Validate your authentication in a fraction of the time it used to take.
Reporting & Analytics
We’re adding an advanced analytics tab to the Intruder portal, to enhance our existing reporting capabilities. With this release, you’ll be able to:
- See how your vulnerability management process has changed over time.
- Present the progress you've made in your cyber security posture to your team.
- If progress hasn’t been made, dig into the analytics and find out why.
We’re delighted to announce that Marc Rubbinaccio (Compliance Lead at Secureframe) will be joining Patrick Craston (CTO at Intruder) for our upcoming webinar: Security compliance 101: Vulnerability management and its importance for security compliance.
Here’s some exciting topics we’ll be talking about:
- What is security compliance?
- Why is vulnerability management so important?
- How automation can help streamline your compliance journey?
- Tools to simplify the vulnerability management process.
Latest product tour and Q&A available on-demand
You can also watch our recent Office Hours: Product Tour and Q&A session that walks new users through the most important features available in the platform. Discover:
- Key features and how to get set up correctly to start scanning.
- Tips and tricks to be as secure as possible.
- 1:1 Q&A with Support.
New to Intruder? We help thousands of small companies stay safe every day. Why not try us free for 14 days?
- Raw CVE Coverage
- Risk Rating Coverage
- Remote Check Types
- Check Publication Lead Time
- Local/Authenticated vs Remote Check Prioritisation
- Software Vendor & Package Coverage
- Headline Vulnerabilities of 2021 Coverage
- Analysis Decisions
Red teamers, security researchers, detection engineers, threat actors have to actively research type of vulnerability, location in vulnerable software and build an associated exploit.
Tenable release checks for 47.43% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 32.96%.
Red teamers, security researchers, detection engineers and threat actors now have access to some of the information they were previously having to hunt themselves, speeding up potential exploit creation.
Tenable release checks for 17.12% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 17.69%.
The likelihood that exploitation in the wild is going to be happening is steadily increasing.
Tenable release checks for 10.9% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 20.69%.
We’re starting to lose some of the benefit of rapid, automated vulnerability detection.
Tenable release checks for 9.58% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 12.43%.
Any detection released a month after the details are publicly available is decreasing in value for me.
Tenable release checks for 14.97% of the CVEs they cover over a month after the CVE details have been published, and Greenbone release 16.23%.
With this information in mind, I wanted to check what is the delay for both Tenable and Greenbone to release a detection for their scanners. The following section will focus on vulnerabilities which:
- Have CVSSv2 rating of 10
- Are exploitable over the network
- Require no user interaction
These are the ones where an attacker can point their exploit code at your vulnerable system and gain unauthorised access.
We’ve seen previously that Tenable have remote checks for 643 critical vulnerabilities, and OpenVAS have remote checks for 450 critical vulnerabilities. Tenable release remote checks for critical vulnerabilities within 1 month of the details being made public 58.4% of the time, but Greenbone release their checks within 1 month 76.8% of the time. So, even though OpenVAS has fewer checks for those critical vulnerabilities, you are more likely to get them within 1 month of the details being made public. Let’s break that down further.
In Figure 10 we can see the absolute number of remote checks released on a given day after a CVE for a critical vulnerability has been published. What you can immediately see is that both Tenable and OpenVAS release the majority of their checks on or before the CVE details are made public; Tenable have released checks for 247 CVEs, and OpenVAS have released checks for 144 CVEs. Then since 2010 Tenable have remote released checks for 147 critical CVEs and OpenVAS 79 critical CVEs on the same day as the vulnerability details were published. The number of vulnerabilities then drops off across the first week and drops further after 1 week, as we would hope for in an efficient time-to-release scenario.
While raw numbers are good, Tenable have a larger number of checks available so it could be unfair to go on raw numbers alone. It’s potentially more important to understand the likelihood that OpenVAS or Tenable will release a check of a vulnerability on any given day after a CVE for a critical vulnerability is released. In Figure 11 we can see that Tenable release 61% their checks on or before the date that a CVE is published, and OpenVAS release a shade under 50% of their checks on or before the day that a CVE is published.
So, since 2010 Tenable has more frequently released their checks before or on the same day as the CVE details have been published for critical vulnerabilities. While Tenable is leading at this point, Greenbone’s community feed still gets a considerable percentage of their checks out on or before day 0.
I thought I’d go another step further and try and see if I could identify any trend in each organisations release delay, are they getting better year-on-year or are their releases getting later? In Figure 12 I’ve taken the mean delay for critical vulnerabilities per year and plotted them. The mean as a metric is particularly influenced by outliers in a data set, so I expected some wackiness and limited the mean to only checks released 180 days prior to a CVE being published and 31 days after a CVE being published. These seem to me like reasonable limits, as anything greater than 6 months prior to CVE details being released is potentially a quirk of the check details and anything after a 1-month delay is less important for us.
What can we take away from Figure 12?
- We can see that between 2011 and 2014 Greenbone’s release delay was better than that of Tenable, by between 5 and 10 days.
- In 2015 things reverse and for 3 years Tenable is considerably ahead of Greenbone by a matter of weeks.
- But, then in 2019 things get much closer and Greenbone seem to be releasing on average about a day earlier than Tenable.
- For both the trendline over an 11-year period is very close, with Tenable marginally beating Greenbone.
- We have yet to have any data for 2021 for OpenVAS checks for critical show-stopper CVEs.
With the larger number of checks, and still being able to release a greater percentage of their remote checks for critical vulnerabilities Tenable could win this category. However, the delay time from 2019 and 2020 going to OpenVAS, and the trend lines being so close, I am going to declare this one a tie. It’s a tie.
The takeaway from this is that both vendors are getting their checks out the majority of the time either before the CVE details are published or on the day the details are published. This is overwhelmingly positive for both scanning solutions. Over time both also appear to be releasing remote checks for critical vulnerabilities more quickly.