Continuous Security Validation
Continuous Security Validation (CSV) is a cybersecurity concept and practice that involves systematically and repeatedly testing the effectiveness of an organization's security controls, configurations, and processes against real-world threat intelligence.
It moves beyond point-in-time assessments, such as annual penetration tests or security audits, by adopting an always-on, automated approach. The core goal is to proactively and continuously answer the question: "Are our security defenses working as intended, right now?"
CSV is typically implemented through automated platforms that perform various checks, including:
Attacks Simulation: Running harmless simulations of adversarial techniques, such as malware execution, lateral movement, or data exfiltration, to test security tools like firewalls, endpoint detection and response (EDR), and intrusion prevention systems (IPS).
Configuration Drift Detection: Ensuring security tools remain configured optimally and haven't drifted into an insecure state over time.
Control Efficacy Measurement: Quantifying how well specific security controls (like multi-factor authentication or network segmentation) prevent or detect known threats.
By constantly validating the security posture against the latest threat intelligence, CSV helps security teams reduce blind spots, prioritize remediation efforts based on actual exposure, and ensure continuous compliance with internal policies and external regulations. It provides quantifiable, objective evidence of security effectiveness rather than relying on assumed functionality.
ThreatNG directly supports Continuous Security Validation (CSV) by providing an external, attacker-centric, and continuous validation of security effectiveness against real-world risks, converting assumed security into quantifiable certainty.
External Discovery and External Assessment
ThreatNG's capabilities align perfectly with CSV's mandate by performing purely external, unauthenticated discovery using no connectors. This continuously validates the security posture from an attacker's perspective, without relying on internal system reports.
The platform's External Assessment suite of Security Ratings (A-F) acts as a continuous validator for specific security controls and configurations:
Cyber Risk Exposure Security Rating (A-F): This rating continuously validates the effectiveness of security controls protecting domains, certificates, and code.
Example: The assessment checks for missing Content-Security-Policy headers on subdomains. If an organization claims to have a strong WAF policy but this check continuously shows the header is missing, ThreatNG validates that the control is ineffective, confirming a real-world exposure.
Web Application Hijack Susceptibility Security Rating (A-F): This specifically validates the proper configuration of security headers like HTTP Strict-Transport-Security (HSTS) and X-Frame-Options across subdomains. The continuous absence of HSTS, for instance, validates that a critical defense against protocol downgrade attacks is failing.
Positive Security Indicators: This feature is a direct form of security validation. Instead of just focusing on vulnerabilities, it actively detects the presence of beneficial security controls and configurations.
Example: It detects and highlights the presence of Web Application Firewalls (WAFs), an SPF Record, a DMARC Record, and Bug Bounties Present. It then validates these positive measures from the perspective of an external attacker, providing objective evidence of their effectiveness and explaining the specific security benefits they offer.
Continuous Monitoring and Reporting
Continuous Monitoring is the bedrock of CSV. ThreatNG continuously monitors the external attack surface, digital risk, and security ratings of all organizations.
The platform's Reporting capabilities provide the measurable evidence required for validation:
Security Ratings Reports (A through F): These provide a continuous, objective security score that tracks the trend of the external posture over time.
External GRC Assessment Mapping Reports: These reports continuously validate compliance by directly mapping exposed assets and vulnerabilities to GRC frameworks such as PCI DSS, HIPAA, and NIST CSF.
Knowledgebase: The embedded knowledge base provides Reasoning and Recommendations that act as a feedback loop for the security team, validating the why and how to fix to improve controls.
Investigation Modules and Intelligence Repositories
Investigation Modules allow for deep, continuous validation against specific threat vectors:
WAF Discovery and Vendor Identification: This validation module can discover and pinpoint the presence of Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) down to the subdomain level, identifying the vendor. This continuously validates that the WAF control, if deployed, is visible and correctly positioned to an external attacker.
Sensitive Code Exposure: This module continuously validates the effectiveness of internal code security policies by identifying public code repositories that contain Access Credentials (e.g., Google OAuth Key) or Database Exposures (e.g., SQL dump files). The persistent exposure of a secret key is a continuous validation failure of the development lifecycle control.
Known Vulnerabilities: This module continuously validates the effectiveness of the patching program.
Example: ThreatNG cross-references discovered assets with its intelligence repository, which integrates KEV(vulnerabilities that are actively being exploited in the wild) and EPSS (a probabilistic estimate of thelikelihood of future exploitation). If an asset is found to have a KEV vulnerability, it validates that the asset is vulnerable to immediate, proven attack methods.
The Intelligence Repositories (DarCache) provide the real-world, dynamic threat context necessary for validation:
Vulnerabilities (DarCache Vulnerability): This repository’s integration with KEV and Verified Proof-of-Concept (PoC) Exploits enables ThreatNG to continuously validate the organization's exposure to the most current and proven threats, significantly acceleratingunderstanding of how a vulnerability can be exploited.
Examples of ThreatNG Helping
Validating Patching Cycles: An organization implements a new 7-day patch cycle for all high-severity vulnerabilities. ThreatNG’s Continuous Monitoring reports a high-severity vulnerability on a newly discovered server. Because the Vulnerabilities repository contains KEV data that marks this specific flaw as "Actively Exploited," ThreatNG validates that the server is exposed to a proven threat. If the vulnerability persists after 7 days, ThreatNG validates that the new patch cycle control failed for that asset.
Validating Cloud Security Policy: A security policy dictates that all cloud storage should be private. ThreatNG's Cloud and SaaS Exposure module continuously scans and reports the discovery of an Open Exposed Cloud Bucket on AWS. This finding, which is a confirmed risk, serves as a continuous validation failure of the cloud security policy.
Cooperation with Complementary Solutions
ThreatNG's external validation data can be used alongside complementary solutions to enhance their internal security validation loops.
Working with an Internal Security Posture Management (CSPM) Solution: A CSPM solution audits internal cloud configurations. ThreatNG can validate these internal findings externally.
Example: If the CSPM reports that a cloud configuration is "compliant," ThreatNG’s Mobile App Exposureor Sensitive Code Exposure modules may discover a hardcoded AWS Access Key ID exposed in a public code repository. ThreatNG provides the external, high-certainty data that validates the internal control's ultimate failure from a real-world threat perspective.
Working with a Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) Solution: BAS solutions simulate attacks internally. ThreatNG provides the real-world initial access vectors.
Example: ThreatNG's External Adversary View aligns the organization's security posture with external threats, mapping findings directly to MITRE ATT&CK techniques by uncovering how an adversary might achieve initial access and establish persistence. This verified, external starting point can be fed into a BAS solution to validate whether the internal controls would successfully detect or prevent the simulated attack from the exact point of exposure identified by ThreatNG.
