Security leaders are highly concerned about a growing software attack surface, yet few feel confident in their ability to see it and manage it, according to a new survey from Ponemon Institute and sponsored by Rezilion. Most of the leaders agree that eliminating complexity in the software attack surface and eliminating vulnerabilities that are not exploitable are key to reducing threats.

With an unprecedented amount of product releases, developers and security teams are both faced with the challenge of balancing security with on-time delivery. Without critically-needed automation tools to detect, prioritize, and address security risks, DevOps teams end up patching vulnerabilities that do not pose actual risks. This slows down development, leaves organizations vulnerable, and causes friction with DevOps’ aggressive release cycles and product security teams.

There are three things in life you can count on: death, taxes, and vulnerability backlogs. Eliminating them has become a major thorn in the side of DevSecOps professionals because it’s not always clear which ones need to be addressed and how quickly. That’s the key: being able to assess, prioritize, and then remediate vulnerabilities.

Security leaders are eager to move to a DevSecOps approach—and why wouldn’t they be? DevSecOps has been emerging as a key component in organizations’ efforts to build strong security into all the software products they deliver. The adoption and implementation of the DevSecOps methodology involves multiple facets of organizations and brings together security and development professionals in a collaborative mission to deliver products that are both high in quality and secure.

In recent months there has been a lot of discussion around the importance of Software Bills of Materials (SBOM) and Vulnerability Exploitability Exchange (VEX) when it comes to managing software vulnerabilities. Organizations can combine the SBOM and VEX to get a more contextualized view of the actual risk present in their environment. In this blog post, we examine how SBOMs and VEX do not need to be 2 artifacts.

New research from the Ponemon Institute uncovers a troubling trend when it comes to risk management. That is, organizations are simply not patching software vulnerabilities fast enough to keep up with the demand for remediation. This can lead to cybersecurity attacks that could spell trouble for businesses as they try to ward off incidents that result in significant damage to their operations.

If there is one thing we all want more of in life, it’s time. And there are few places where we are more pinched for time than on the job. With so many tasks and deliverables to get done, it rarely seems like we have enough hours in the day to tackle it all. In the world of software security, developers experience this daily as the work to ship code without vulnerabilities.

VEX is an acronym for Vulnerability Exploitability eXchange and was developed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). According the guidance provided by NTIA , the primary use cases for VEX are to provide users (e.g., operators, developers, and services providers) with additional information on whether a product is impacted by a specific vulnerability in an included component and, if affected, whether there are actions recommended to remediate.

By now, it should be crystal clear that having a vulnerability management strategy is key to keeping your network safe from exploitations and ensuring it is compliant with regulatory requirements. In today’s fast-paced, IT-dependent business world, a strong vulnerability management program will detect, identify, rank, improve and remediate vulnerabilities found in software and networks. But not all programs are created equal.

The software development process is one with strict deadlines. The pace of innovation does not slow down. Because of this, developers often find themselves frustration as they try to ensure that the product they’re producing delivers on customer expectations, while also limiting vulnerabilities. The balancing act between product security and meeting the needs of a time crunch can lead to a product being rushed to the market, leaving it vulnerable to unpatched exploits.