Traditional vs. Next-Gen Vulnerability Management
TRADITIONAL VS. NEXT-GENERATION VULNERABILITY MANAGEMENT VULNERABILITY MANAGEMENT >> Scanless Discovery Active Scan 300 Page Manual Analysis Assessment Report RINSE & REPEAT Support Ticket Automated, Context-Aware Analysis ACTIVE SCAN PER HOUR 250 HOSTS SCANLESS DETECTION 12,000 HOSTS PER HOUR Whole process takes 50x 3. 3 MONTHS OR MORE! Whole process takes FASTER ONE DAY! DISRUPTIVE NON-DISRUPTIVE 40% of companies scan the DMZ monthly or less frequently due to concerns about disruption. Derives vulnerabilities from existing data resulting in no network disruption. O 50% O 90% Blind spots Network Visibility No Context Risk-based OF NETWORK COVERED Data Overload Focused OF NETWORK COVERED IN 30-90 DAYS IN LESS THAN 1 DAY STALE DATA FRESH DATA Data is continuously updated, Round-robin scanning skips important systems for weeks or months. with no round-robin compromise needed. NE AR ZERO HIGH false positives false positives HARD to prioritize RANK by risk automatically LOTS of unnecessary patching FIND alternatives ATTACK VECTORS OPEN FOR MONTHS ELIMINATE ATTACK VECTORS FAST TOO MUCH CHASE RED CONTEXT 99% HERRINGS AWARE DATA DATA REDUCTION Raise the bar against attacks every day. SOURCES Skybox Security Customer Deployment Analysis skybx Skybox Security Lab Test Results Skybox Security Vulnerability Manangement Survey 2012 (conducted in conjunction with Osterman Research) security PROCESS VISIBILITY RISK REDUCTION
Traditional vs. Next-Gen Vulnerability Management
Source
http://lp.sk...aphic.htmlCategory
TechnologyGet a Quote