Cymulate vs Picus vs AttackIQ 2026: Breach and Attack Simulation Compared
Penetration tests and red team exercises answer an important question: given several weeks of effort, can skilled human attackers find a path into and through the environment? But they answer it once or twice per year, and the security controls they test change constantly. A SIEM detection rule is tuned and breaks. An EDR policy update inadvertently disables a behavioral detection. A new cloud deployment creates an attack surface that existing controls were not configured to cover. By the time the next annual penetration test runs, the detection gaps introduced by six months of control changes are unknown.
Breach and attack simulation platforms address this gap by automating adversary technique execution against production security controls at a frequency that human red teams cannot match. The AttackIQ 2024 data finding that 53% of MITRE ATT&CK techniques go undetected in average enterprise environments is not a statement about adversary sophistication. It is a statement about the drift between security control deployments and the threat techniques those controls are supposed to detect.
This guide compares the three leading BAS platforms for enterprise security programs: Cymulate, Picus Security, and AttackIQ. The comparison covers scenario library breadth, MITRE ATT&CK coverage depth, purple team workflow support, the security program prerequisites for BAS to deliver ROI, and the critical question of how to position BAS relative to red team exercises and penetration testing in a balanced offensive security program.
What BAS Is and What It Is Not
Breach and attack simulation is a category of security testing technology that executes adversary techniques against production security controls automatically, measures whether those controls detected or prevented the technique, and reports the results as quantified detection coverage rather than qualitative narrative findings.
The defining characteristics of BAS that distinguish it from other security testing categories are automation, frequency, and production-environment execution. BAS simulations run without human red teamers conducting each test: the platform executes pre-built adversary technique simulations from its scenario library against connected security controls and measures the detection outcome. This automation enables frequency: BAS simulations can run daily or weekly across hundreds of techniques that would require months of human red team effort to test manually. Production-environment execution means BAS tests the actual controls deployed in the production environment rather than in a separate test environment, so results reflect real detection capability rather than test environment capability.
BAS is not adversary simulation in the creative, adaptive sense that human red teams provide. A BAS platform executes known techniques from its scenario library against controls that have been specifically instrumented to measure the detection outcome. The simulation does not discover novel attack paths, does not chain techniques in unexpected ways based on real-time environment observation, and does not test the organization's detection and response process under realistic conditions where the attack pattern is unknown. These are capabilities that human red teams provide and that BAS cannot replicate.
BAS is also not a vulnerability scanner. Vulnerability scanners identify configuration weaknesses and unpatched software. BAS tests whether security controls detect and prevent exploitation of those and other weaknesses. An organization can have a fully patched, well-configured environment and still have significant BAS coverage gaps because their detection rules are not tuned to catch the lateral movement and data staging techniques that follow initial access.
The appropriate mental model for BAS is a fire alarm test system for security controls: it continuously tests whether the detection infrastructure would alert if specific adversary techniques were executed, rather than waiting for an actual incident to reveal that an alarm was not working.
BAS and the Gartner CTEM Framework
Gartner's Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) framework, introduced in 2022, has become the organizational model that security leaders use to structure their exposure management programs. Understanding where BAS fits in CTEM clarifies why BAS investment has accelerated alongside CTEM adoption.
CTEM defines five stages of a continuous exposure management program: Scoping (defining the attack surface to be managed), Discovery (identifying assets and exposures within scope), Prioritization (risk-ranking exposures based on exploitability and business impact), Validation (testing whether security controls would actually detect or prevent exploitation of prioritized exposures), and Mobilization (remediating validated gaps and tracking improvement).
BAS is the primary technology enabling the Validation stage of CTEM. Validation is the stage that distinguishes CTEM from traditional vulnerability management programs that stop at Prioritization: CTEM requires organizations to test whether their controls would actually detect an attack that exploits a prioritized vulnerability, not just whether the vulnerability exists. This validation step closes the gap between a vulnerability management program that scores and ranks vulnerabilities and a security program that knows with confidence whether existing controls would detect exploitation.
Picus Security has invested most explicitly in the CTEM positioning, marketing its platform as the Complete Security Control Validation solution that covers the full CTEM validation workflow. Cymulate similarly positions its platform as a CTEM enabler through its exposure management capabilities. AttackIQ emphasizes its role in validating the detection effectiveness of the security stack as a CTEM Validation layer.
For security leaders building CTEM programs, BAS is not an optional add-on but a required technology component. The Validation stage cannot be executed at the frequency and breadth that CTEM requires using only periodic manual penetration tests. BAS automation is what makes continuous validation operationally feasible.
Briefings like this, every morning before 9am.
Threat intel, active CVEs, and campaign alerts, distilled for practitioners. 50,000+ subscribers. No noise.
Cymulate: Broad Attack Vector Coverage and Executive Reporting
Cymulate is an Israeli-founded BAS platform that has built its market position on broad attack vector coverage across the widest range of attack surfaces in its platform tier, combined with executive reporting that makes BAS results consumable by security leadership without requiring deep offensive security expertise to interpret.
Cymulate's scenario library covers attack vectors across email gateway testing (phishing simulation, malicious attachment testing, business email compromise scenarios), web application security testing (injection, OWASP Top 10 scenarios), data exfiltration testing (DNS exfiltration, HTTP exfiltration, cloud storage exfiltration), endpoint and lateral movement testing (MITRE ATT&CK technique execution on endpoints), cloud security testing (AWS, Azure, GCP misconfiguration and attack scenarios), and network security testing (firewall rule validation, intrusion detection system bypass testing).
This multi-vector coverage model is Cymulate's primary differentiation: where some BAS platforms focus deeply on endpoint ATT&CK technique coverage, Cymulate explicitly tests the full attack chain from initial access through email to lateral movement to data exfiltration. A single Cymulate assessment can validate whether an attacker could successfully deliver a payload through the email gateway, establish persistence on the initial compromised endpoint, move laterally to additional systems, and exfiltrate data through available exfiltration channels, testing each control in the sequence.
Immediate remediation guidance is a feature that Cymulate emphasizes: after identifying a detection gap, the platform provides specific recommended actions for the security team, including SIEM detection rule recommendations, EDR policy adjustments, and firewall rule changes that would address the identified gap. This remediation guidance reduces the time between gap identification and remediation for teams that lack deep offensive security expertise.
Executive dashboard reporting translates BAS technical results into business-level metrics: overall security score across attack vectors, score trends over time, comparison against industry benchmarks, and prioritized improvement recommendations. These dashboard views support the security program communication to executive leadership and board audiences that security leaders increasingly need to provide.
Cymulate acquired Skybox Security in 2024, which expanded the platform's attack path modeling capabilities and network security posture management features, adding exposure analysis to the BAS core functionality and positioning Cymulate as a broader CTEM platform rather than a pure BAS tool.
Picus Security: MITRE ATT&CK Alignment and Threat Intelligence-Driven Simulation
Picus Security is a Turkish-founded BAS vendor with particularly deep investment in MITRE ATT&CK framework alignment and threat intelligence-driven simulation, positioning its platform around the Picus Labs threat research team that continuously converts newly observed adversary TTPs into simulation scenarios.
The Picus Red Report, published annually, is the most widely cited BAS vendor research product in the market: the report analyzes hundreds of thousands of real-world malware samples processed through Picus Labs to identify which ATT&CK techniques are most commonly used by active threat actors. The 2024 Red Report's finding that the top 10 ATT&CK techniques appear in 90% of analyzed malware samples has shaped how security programs prioritize detection coverage investment. This threat intelligence methodology connects Picus simulations directly to current adversary behavior patterns rather than static technique libraries.
Picus Security's Complete Security Control Validation platform covers endpoint simulation, network control validation, email security testing, and cloud control validation. The platform measures each control's effectiveness as a quantified score rather than a binary detected/not-detected result, providing a more nuanced view of control effectiveness that reflects partial detection or prevention capability.
The Picus platform generates SIEM detection rules as part of its remediation workflow: after identifying that a specific ATT&CK technique evades the connected SIEM, Picus can generate a ready-to-deploy detection rule for the SIEM platform, reducing the remediation work from a detection engineering task to a review-and-deploy task. This detection rule generation capability is valuable for security operations teams that are not equipped to write complex SIEM queries from scratch.
Picus integration with threat intelligence platforms allows organizations to ingest threat intelligence feeds and automatically trigger simulations of techniques associated with newly identified threats. If a threat intelligence platform reports a new campaign using a specific credential access technique, Picus can automatically run the simulation for that technique and report whether the organization's current controls would detect it, completing the intelligence-to-validation cycle without manual intervention.
AttackIQ: Enterprise Scale and Managed BAS for MSSPs and MDR Partners
AttackIQ is a US-based BAS platform that has built its strongest position in the enterprise market and among MSSPs and MDR providers that offer managed BAS as a service to their customer base. The platform's enterprise scale features and MSSP multi-tenancy architecture address the requirements of security service providers and large enterprises with complex, distributed environments.
The AttackIQ Flex agent is a lightweight assessment-mode agent that can be deployed on endpoints in air-gapped or isolated network segments without requiring persistent connectivity back to the AttackIQ platform. This Flex agent capability addresses a requirement that excludes BAS vendors without it from air-gapped industrial control system environments, classified networks, and isolated compliance environments where persistent external connectivity is not permitted.
AttackIQ Academy is a threat-informed defense training program that provides free and paid training for security practitioners on purple team methodology, MITRE ATT&CK usage, and BAS program development. The Academy has become a significant ecosystem building initiative: organizations that train their security teams using AttackIQ Academy material have deeper familiarity with AttackIQ's platform approach and are more likely to select AttackIQ for production BAS deployment. The training investment also supports the purple team use case, which requires both offensive simulation knowledge and defensive detection knowledge in the same team.
The MSSP and MDR partner network positions AttackIQ for organizations that prefer to consume BAS as a managed service rather than operating it internally. An MSSP customer can access AttackIQ BAS capabilities through their managed security services relationship without deploying and operating the platform internally. This delivery model is particularly relevant for organizations that lack the internal offensive security expertise to interpret BAS results and drive remediation without practitioner support.
AttackIQ's enterprise deployment model supports large-scale deployments across global environments with thousands of endpoints. The platform's RBAC model supports multi-team access with separation of duties between simulation operators, detection engineers, and management dashboard consumers. Integration with enterprise SIEM platforms (Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM QRadar) through pre-built integrations allows BAS simulation results to be correlated with SIEM detection events in the same investigation interface.
Head-to-Head Comparison
The seven evaluation criteria below reflect the decision factors that security and offensive security teams use to select BAS platforms for enterprise deployments.
Scenario Library Breadth
Cymulate leads on multi-vector coverage across email, web, network, endpoint, and cloud attack surfaces. Picus and AttackIQ lead on MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise technique depth. All three platforms maintain active scenario libraries with regular updates tied to threat intelligence.
MITRE ATT&CK Coverage Depth
Picus leads on ATT&CK alignment depth and threat intelligence-driven technique prioritization through Picus Labs research. AttackIQ has strong ATT&CK coverage with explicit framework-first positioning. Cymulate covers ATT&CK alongside broader attack vector coverage that extends beyond the Enterprise matrix.
Agent Requirements
All three platforms require lightweight agents on simulated endpoints. AttackIQ Flex provides the most flexible agentless assessment mode for air-gapped environments. Cymulate and Picus have standard agent deployments suitable for managed enterprise environments.
SIEM Integration
All three platforms integrate with major SIEM platforms (Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM QRadar, Chronicle). Picus provides SIEM detection rule generation as a remediation output. AttackIQ has the deepest Splunk integration through its Splunk partnership.
EDR Vendor Integrations
All three platforms measure EDR detection outcomes for simulated endpoint techniques, integrating with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, and Carbon Black. Integration depth for specific EDR vendors varies: AttackIQ has the deepest CrowdStrike integration through its partnership relationship.
Purple Team Workflow Support
AttackIQ leads on purple team training through AttackIQ Academy. Cymulate provides collaborative purple team scenario building with operator and defender interfaces. Picus supports purple team exercises with side-by-side offensive simulation and detection validation workflows.
Pricing Model
All three vendors use annual SaaS subscription pricing based on endpoint count and assessment scope. None publishes list pricing. Market data suggests entry-level deployments range from $50,000-$100,000 annually, with enterprise deployments scaling to $300,000+ based on environment size and add-on scenario libraries.
Security Program Prerequisites for BAS ROI
BAS investment does not deliver ROI in security programs that have not established foundational security operations capabilities. Understanding the prerequisites prevents the common mistake of purchasing BAS before the organization is ready to act on its findings.
EDR coverage across managed endpoints is the minimum technical prerequisite for endpoint BAS testing. As noted, BAS endpoint simulations that run against partial EDR coverage produce results that reflect coverage on instrumented endpoints while masking the larger gap of unprotected endpoints. Before running BAS endpoint simulations, EDR deployment should reach at minimum 85% coverage of managed endpoints.
A deployed and tuned SIEM with defined detection use cases is the second prerequisite. BAS tests whether your SIEM detection rules catch specific techniques. If the SIEM has no behavioral detection rules and operates primarily on log aggregation and basic threshold alerts, BAS will report uniformly poor detection coverage regardless of which platform you use. The finding will be accurate, but the remediation action is to write detection rules, not to purchase more BAS scenarios. Organizations should have a baseline set of detection use cases implemented in their SIEM before using BAS to measure their effectiveness.
A defined purple team or detection engineering function is required to act on BAS findings. BAS generates a list of techniques that your controls did not detect. Closing those gaps requires detection engineering work: writing SIEM detection rules, tuning EDR behavioral policies, adjusting network detection thresholds. If no one in the organization has the skills and assigned responsibility to perform this work, BAS findings accumulate without remediation and the program does not improve detection coverage.
Finally, organizational capacity to review and act on BAS results is necessary for program continuity. BAS platforms generate significant ongoing output: weekly simulation results across hundreds of techniques, remediation recommendations, score trend reports. An organization without the capacity to review and prioritize these results finds the program generating data that no one acts on. Before purchasing BAS, confirming that a named role or team has BAS result review and remediation prioritization as part of their regular function is essential for program sustainability.
BAS vs Red Team vs Penetration Test Decision Framework
BAS, red team exercises, and penetration tests are complementary security testing capabilities that serve different purposes and should be used together in a balanced offensive security program rather than as substitutes for each other.
Penetration tests are point-in-time assessments conducted by external practitioners against a defined scope, following a methodology that discovers vulnerabilities and demonstrates exploitability through manual testing. A penetration test answers: 'Are there exploitable vulnerabilities in this specific system or application?' The deliverable is a vulnerability report with proof-of-concept findings and remediation recommendations. Penetration tests are appropriate for specific scopes (a web application, a network segment, a cloud environment) at defined intervals, and are required by many compliance frameworks including PCI-DSS, SOC 2 (as a complementary assessment), and ISO 27001.
Red team exercises are goal-oriented adversary simulations where a skilled team attempts to achieve specific objectives (exfiltrate a specific dataset, achieve administrative access to a specific system) using any available techniques, adapting their approach based on real-time feedback from the environment. Red team exercises answer: 'Could a capable adversary achieve this objective given a defined effort?' The deliverable is a narrative exercise report with attack path documentation, detection coverage findings, and recommendations for both preventive controls and detection rule improvements. Red team exercises should be conducted annually to bi-annually by organizations with mature security programs.
BAS answers: 'Does the current security stack detect or prevent specific known adversary techniques?' The deliverable is a quantified detection coverage score across MITRE ATT&CK techniques, with technique-specific gap identification and remediation recommendations. BAS runs continuously at a frequency that human testers cannot match.
The integrated program that uses all three capabilities in sequence produces the strongest security outcome: use BAS continuously to maintain visibility into detection coverage and identify regressions; use penetration tests to validate control effectiveness for specific systems and applications required by compliance; use red team exercises annually to discover novel attack paths and test organizational response to realistic adversary simulation. The 60% of organizations using BAS that report improved purple team exercise outcomes suggests that BAS-driven remediation cycles between red team exercises increase the value of each exercise by eliminating the known technique gaps that would otherwise consume exercise time.
The bottom line
Cymulate wins for organizations that want the broadest multi-vector attack surface coverage in a single platform, including email, web, network, endpoint, and cloud simulations with executive-level reporting. Picus Security wins for organizations where MITRE ATT&CK alignment, threat intelligence-driven simulation, and SIEM detection rule generation are the primary requirements. AttackIQ wins for enterprises, MSSPs, and organizations with air-gapped environments that require the Flex agent capability and the managed BAS delivery model through the MSSP partner network. Before purchasing any BAS platform, confirm the prerequisites are in place: the 53% undetected ATT&CK technique rate that BAS exists to address is a fixable problem only if your organization has the detection engineering capacity to act on the gaps that BAS identifies.
Frequently asked questions
How often should you run BAS simulations?
The frequency of BAS simulation runs depends on what you are testing and what triggers should initiate testing beyond a scheduled cadence. For continuous baseline coverage monitoring, running the full BAS scenario library on a weekly or bi-weekly schedule provides a rolling view of detection coverage that catches regressions introduced by EDR policy changes, SIEM rule modifications, or infrastructure changes. Weekly full-library runs balance coverage completeness against the computational and network overhead of continuous simulation activity. For specific change-triggered testing, BAS should be run immediately following security control changes that could affect detection coverage: after deploying a new EDR policy, after modifying SIEM detection rules, after onboarding a new security tool, or after major infrastructure changes like cloud provider migrations. Change-triggered BAS testing validates that the change achieved its intended detection improvement without inadvertently degrading existing coverage. For threat intelligence-driven testing, BAS scenarios tied to newly observed threat actor TTPs should be run as soon as the intelligence is available. If a threat intelligence report identifies that a threat actor targeting your sector is using a specific lateral movement technique, running the BAS simulation for that technique immediately tells you whether your current controls would detect or prevent it rather than waiting for the next scheduled simulation cycle. AttackIQ, Picus, and Cymulate all support scheduled continuous simulation plus on-demand ad hoc simulation, so the frequency decision is a policy and capacity question rather than a platform limitation.
Does BAS replace red team exercises?
BAS does not replace red team exercises, and organizations that position BAS as a red team replacement are misunderstanding both capabilities. They address different objectives and should be used together rather than as alternatives. Red team exercises are goal-oriented adversary simulations conducted by human practitioners who adapt their techniques in real time based on what they observe in the target environment. A skilled red team will discover novel attack paths that are not in any existing framework or scenario library, chain together techniques in unexpected ways that automated tools do not simulate, and test the organization's detection and response capabilities under realistic adversary conditions where the exact attack pattern is unknown in advance. BAS is systematic and exhaustive within a known technique library. It tests whether your current controls detect or prevent specific MITRE ATT&CK techniques that are catalogued and predictable. BAS can run hundreds of technique tests per week continuously. A red team exercise typically runs for two to four weeks once or twice per year. BAS provides breadth and frequency that human red teams cannot match. Red teams provide depth, creativity, and novel attack path discovery that automated simulation cannot replicate. The appropriate integration of BAS and red team exercises is to use BAS findings to prepare for and maximize the value of red team engagements. Before a red team exercise, BAS results identify which techniques the existing controls already detect, allowing the red team to focus their limited engagement time on techniques and attack paths that are not covered by automated simulation. After a red team exercise, BAS validates that the remediation actions taken in response to red team findings actually improved detection coverage.
What EDR coverage is needed before BAS is useful for endpoint testing?
BAS endpoint simulation tests are only meaningful if the EDR platform is deployed on a sufficient percentage of the endpoints in the test environment. Running endpoint BAS scenarios against a 60% EDR-deployed environment tells you that the EDR catches or misses specific techniques on the machines where it is deployed, but says nothing about the 40% of endpoints that have no coverage. The minimum EDR coverage threshold for BAS endpoint testing to be useful is approximately 85-90% of managed endpoints. Below this threshold, BAS results reflect the EDR's detection capability on endpoints where it is present, but the primary security gap (the unmanaged endpoints) is not being addressed by BAS testing and may be obscuring a more fundamental remediation priority. Beyond coverage percentage, BAS endpoint testing requires that the EDR deployment configuration is representative of the production configuration. If BAS simulations run on a dedicated test endpoint with a permissive EDR policy while production endpoints use a restrictive policy (or vice versa), BAS results do not reflect actual production detection capability. The BAS test environment should mirror the production EDR policy configuration exactly. For organizations with less than 85% EDR coverage, the higher-priority investment before BAS is completing EDR deployment to close the coverage gap. Demonstrating that existing controls detect known techniques on covered endpoints is less valuable than ensuring all endpoints have baseline detection coverage.
What MITRE ATT&CK coverage percentage should we benchmark against?
MITRE ATT&CK coverage benchmarking requires distinguishing between two different metrics: technique coverage (the percentage of ATT&CK techniques that the security program can detect or prevent) and simulation coverage (the percentage of ATT&CK techniques that the BAS platform's scenario library can simulate). For simulation coverage, the leading BAS platforms simulate between 800 and 1,500+ individual techniques and sub-techniques from the ATT&CK Enterprise matrix, which contains approximately 600+ techniques and sub-techniques in the current version. Coverage percentages above 100% occur because some BAS platforms include techniques from ATT&CK for Cloud, ATT&CK for Mobile, and ICS in addition to ATT&CK Enterprise, expanding the simulation surface beyond the Enterprise matrix alone. For detection coverage benchmarking, AttackIQ's 2024 data showing that 53% of ATT&CK techniques go undetected in average enterprise environments is the baseline to measure against. Organizations with mature security operations programs (EDR with behavioral analytics, tuned SIEM detection rules, network traffic analysis) typically achieve 55-70% detection coverage in BAS testing. Organizations in the top quartile of security maturity achieve 75-85% coverage. Detection coverage above 85% for all ATT&CK techniques is not achieved by most organizations because some techniques (certain living-off-the-land techniques that use legitimate system tools) are intentionally difficult to detect without generating unacceptable false positive rates. A more useful benchmark than a total coverage percentage is technique coverage by tactic category. Organizations should aim for near-complete coverage (90%+) for Initial Access, Execution, and Persistence tactics where early detection has the highest impact on preventing attack progression, while accepting lower coverage in areas where detection is inherently difficult (Defense Evasion sub-techniques that use signed legitimate binaries).
Can BAS test cloud environments?
BAS platforms have expanded cloud simulation capabilities significantly, but cloud BAS operates differently from endpoint BAS and has different coverage characteristics. For cloud infrastructure testing, BAS platforms simulate MITRE ATT&CK for Cloud techniques: identity-based attacks (credential abuse, privilege escalation through cloud IAM misconfiguration), data exfiltration from cloud storage, resource hijacking for cryptomining, and persistence through cloud-native mechanisms (Lambda functions, scheduled tasks, cloud provider backdoors). Cymulate and AttackIQ both include cloud attack simulations that execute these techniques against actual cloud environments (AWS, Azure, GCP) using test credentials with limited permissions scoped specifically for simulation. The critical operational requirement for cloud BAS testing is that simulations must run against a non-production cloud account or environment. Running cloud BAS simulations that create resources, modify IAM policies, or access cloud storage against production accounts risks unintended impact on production workloads and data. Most BAS vendors provide guidance on setting up an isolated cloud simulation account with the specific permissions needed for simulation without production blast radius. Cloud BAS also tests cloud security controls: Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) tools, Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP), and SIEM detection rules for cloud provider audit log events. After running a cloud simulation, the BAS platform reports which simulated techniques generated alerts in the connected CSPM or SIEM and which passed undetected, using the same detection validation methodology applied to endpoint simulations. Picus Security has invested particularly in cloud control validation through its Complete Security Control Validation platform, which specifically includes cloud control testing alongside traditional endpoint and network testing.
How do you measure ROI from a BAS program?
BAS ROI measurement should be grounded in detection coverage improvement over time rather than in hypothetical breach cost avoidance calculations that are difficult to validate. The primary ROI metric is mean time to detect (MTTD) reduction for techniques that BAS testing identifies as gaps. When BAS reveals that a specific lateral movement technique evades the SIEM for an average of 22 days before being detected through other means, and after remediation (adding a detection rule for that technique) the BAS simulation confirms immediate detection, the improvement is measurable and directly attributable to the BAS-driven remediation cycle. The 14-day gap between control gap discovery and remediation with BAS versus 60+ days without, cited in platform data, represents the operational efficiency gain from continuous automated testing versus periodic manual testing. In security programs where gap remediation velocity matters (for example, organizations that need to demonstrate responsiveness to threat intelligence about techniques used by active threat actors), this cycle time reduction is a concrete operational metric. For executive reporting, BAS ROI is most compellingly presented as coverage score improvement over time: a dashboard showing that the organization's detection coverage across MITRE ATT&CK techniques improved from 54% to 71% over 12 months of BAS-driven remediation provides a concrete metric for security program improvement that is independent of whether a real attack occurred. This metric also provides evidence for board-level security program investment discussions: showing measurable improvement in detection capability over a fiscal year demonstrates that security spending produced quantifiable security outcome improvement rather than simply maintaining the status quo.
Sources & references
Free resources
Critical CVE Reference Card 2025–2026
25 actively exploited vulnerabilities with CVSS scores, exploit status, and patch availability. Print it, pin it, share it with your SOC team.
Ransomware Incident Response Playbook
Step-by-step 24-hour IR checklist covering detection, containment, eradication, and recovery. Built for SOC teams, IR leads, and CISOs.
Get threat intel before your inbox does.
50,000+ security professionals read Decryption Digest for early warnings on zero-days, ransomware, and nation-state campaigns. Free, weekly, no spam.
Unsubscribe anytime. We never sell your data.
Founder & Cybersecurity Evangelist, Decryption Digest
Cybersecurity professional with expertise in threat intelligence, vulnerability research, and enterprise security. Covers zero-days, ransomware, and nation-state operations for 50,000+ security professionals weekly.
The Mythos Brief is free.
AI that finds 27-year-old zero-days. What it means for your security program.