Security Rating Dispute Process
In the cybersecurity industry, a Security Rating Dispute Process is a formal mechanism provided by cyber risk rating platforms (such as SecurityScorecard, BitSight, or UpGuard) that allows an organization to challenge, correct, or appeal inaccuracies in its security score.
Because security ratings are primarily generated using non-intrusive, outside-in scanning methods, these platforms occasionally misattribute digital assets, flag resolved vulnerabilities as active, or fail to detect internal compensating controls. The dispute process ensures that companies can provide context or evidence to rectify these discrepancies and maintain an accurate representation of their external cybersecurity posture.
Why is the Dispute Process Necessary?
Maintaining an accurate security rating is critical because these scores are frequently used by partners, investors, and cyber insurance providers to assess third-party risk. A formal dispute process is necessary to address:
Asset Misattribution: Automated scanners may incorrectly link an IP address, domain, or subsidiary to the wrong organization.
False Positives: Tools might flag a vulnerability that does not actually exist or is not exploitable in the specific environment.
Compensating Controls: An organization might have internal security measures (such as firewalls, web application firewalls, or network segmentation) that mitigate a risk that an external scanner cannot inherently detect.
Remediated Issues: A vulnerability may have been patched or fixed internally, but the external scanner has not yet run a new cycle to recognize the update.
Typical Steps in a Security Rating Dispute Process
While the exact procedure varies by rating provider, a standard dispute resolution process generally follows these structured steps:
1. Identify the Discrepancy
The organization reviews its scorecard to pinpoint the specific findings, vulnerabilities, or digital assets that are inaccurate, outdated, or misattributed.
2. Gather Supporting Evidence
To successfully challenge a rating, the organization must compile proof. This can include patch logs, configuration screenshots, architecture diagrams, or documentation proving that a specific domain or IP address is no longer owned by the company.
3. Submit the Dispute Request
Using the rating platform's portal, the organization submits a formal request. They must typically select a reason for the dispute, such as "I have fixed this," "This is not my IP/domain," or "I have a compensating control."
4. Vendor Review
The security rating provider reviews the submitted evidence. This review is often conducted by human security analysts who verify the claims against their scanning data and methodologies.
5. Resolution and Score Update
If the dispute is accepted, the platform updates the data. The removal of the vulnerability or correction of asset attribution will typically result in an improved security score within a few days. If denied, the provider usually offers feedback on why the evidence was insufficient.
Common Types of Rating Disputes
When filing a dispute, organizations generally categorize their requests into one of three distinct resolution types:
Correction (Not Mine): The organization proves that a flagged asset, such as a parked domain, a marketing site, or a former IP address, does not belong to their primary infrastructure.
Appeal (Fixed/Remediated): The organization provides evidence that the identified vulnerability has already been patched or resolved.
Compensating Control: The organization explains that while the external vulnerability appears valid to a scanner, an unseen internal control neutralizes the actual risk.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
How long does a security rating dispute take to resolve?
Most major security rating platforms aim to review and respond to disputes within 48 to 72 hours. If a dispute is approved, it may take an additional 24 to 48 hours for the platform's algorithm to recalculate and update the overall security score.
Do rating platforms charge a fee to dispute a score?
No reputable security rating provider charges a fee to dispute or improve a score. The dispute process is a standard operational feature designed to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the data across the platform.
What happens if a dispute is denied?
If a security rating provider denies a dispute, they will usually explain the reasoning behind the rejection. The organization can then take further remediation steps to fix the underlying issue, gather stronger evidence to prove a compensating control, and resubmit the dispute for a second review.
Can an organization use the dispute process if it is not a paying customer?
Yes. Organizations have the right to claim their profile, review their basic scorecard, and submit disputes for inaccurate data, even if they do not purchase a premium subscription from the rating provider. This ensures fairness and accuracy in the wider third-party risk management ecosystem.
How ThreatNG Empowers the Security Rating Dispute Process
ThreatNG provides organizations with the exact legal-grade attribution and forensic proof needed to dispute inaccurate security ratings. By combining continuous external discovery, contextual attack path intelligence, and comprehensive investigation modules, ThreatNG acts as a "Credit Repair Lawyer" to successfully challenge and correct false positives generated by legacy rating agencies.
Below is a detailed breakdown of how ThreatNG's core capabilities ensure organizations maintain absolute control over their digital narrative and third-party risk profile.
How Does Continuous External Discovery Find Hidden Assets?
ThreatNG performs purely external, unauthenticated discovery without the friction of deploying connectors or agents. This capability is critical during a dispute because it allows security teams to map their true digital footprint and identify the root cause of algorithmic penalties.
Identifying Ghost Assets: The platform discovers shadow IT, dangling CNAME records, and forgotten subdomains before official auditors detect them.
Dynamic Entity Management: Organizations can group discovered assets by specific people, places, and brands. This ensures that if an automated scanner flags an IP address belonging to a divested subsidiary, the security team immediately has the context to prove the asset is no longer part of their active infrastructure.
What Are Examples of ThreatNG's External Assessments?
ThreatNG generates A-F security ratings across multiple risk vectors, providing organizations with a crucial "grace period" to remediate issues before an external rating agency issues a penalty.
Subdomain Takeover Susceptibility: ThreatNG identifies all associated subdomains and uses DNS enumeration to find CNAME records pointing to third-party services. It cross-references these against a vast vendor list—including AWS, Heroku, Shopify, and Microsoft Azure—to determine if a resource is inactive or unclaimed. This proves exactly where a dangling DNS risk exists so it can be secured.
Positive Security Indicators: Instead of only looking for vulnerabilities, ThreatNG actively detects beneficial security controls. By identifying active Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) and Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA), ThreatNG provides the objective evidence needed to prove to auditors that a compensating control is actively neutralizing a perceived threat.
Brand Damage Susceptibility: This assessment monitors negative news, SEC filings, and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) violations. This allows organizations to proactively address narrative risks and impersonation campaigns that could damage vendor trust.
How Do Reporting and Continuous Monitoring Support Disputes?
Legacy rating agencies scan at a slow, periodic pace, leaving organizations vulnerable to sudden, unexplained score drops.
Continuous Monitoring: ThreatNG continuously scans for leaked API keys or misconfigured cloud buckets, identifying them the moment they are exposed. This allows teams to fix the issue before the next external audit cycle.
Comprehensive Reporting: ThreatNG translates chaotic technical telemetry into executive, technical, and prioritized reports.
Exception Management: When an auditor flags a known, secure asset, ThreatNG generates an exception report. This formally documents the asset as a governed business requirement rather than a negligent oversight, instantly resolving the dispute.
How Do Investigation Modules Gather Forensic Evidence?
ThreatNG relies on a deep ecosystem of specialized Investigation Modules to hunt for active threats and provide the granular forensic context required to win a rating dispute.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Discovery and Vendor Identification: This module identifies the presence of WAFs at the subdomain level. It classifies specific vendors such as Cloudflare, Fortinet, Imperva, and Palo Alto Networks. Finding these WAFs provides the exact proof needed to argue that a flagged open port is protected by a defense-in-depth architecture.
Domain Intelligence: This module maps the true perimeter by uncovering forgotten cloud hosting and DNS records. It externally identifies cloud infrastructure vendors, edge deployment tools, and hosting platforms, ensuring security teams know exactly who is hosting a disputed asset.
Sensitive Code Exposure: This module discovers public code repositories and evaluates them for exposed access credentials, such as AWS Access Keys, Stripe API keys, and GitHub Access Tokens. Finding these exposures early prevents automated rating algorithms from penalizing the organization for poor data security.
How Do Intelligence Repositories (DarCache) Prove Context?
ThreatNG fuses raw data with real-world threat intelligence using its DarCache repositories. By combining technical findings with decisive legal and financial context, ThreatNG delivers absolute certainty.
DarCache Vulnerability: This engine triangulates risk by combining National Vulnerability Database (NVD) severity ratings, Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS) predictive scores, Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) active-exploitation data, and verified Proof-of-Concept (PoC) exploits. This cuts through the noise of generic CVE lists to deliver a definitive, decision-ready verdict on what actually needs patching.
DarCache 8-K: This repository monitors SEC Form 8-K filings to provide legal and financial context. If a rating agency drops a score due to a breach at a former subsidiary, this repository provides the irrefutable proof of divestiture needed to force a score correction.
DarCache Ransomware: Tracks the specific tactics, techniques, and procedures of over 100 active ransomware gangs. This helps prioritize remediation efforts by correlating external exposures directly with real-world extortion threats.
How Does ThreatNG Cooperate with Complementary Solutions?
ThreatNG seamlessly works alongside existing enterprise security stacks to provide holistic risk governance. By acting as the contextual intelligence layer, ThreatNG enhances the value of other platforms.
Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM): CAASM platforms provide a comprehensive inventory of internally managed assets via APIs and agents. ThreatNG acts as a complementary solution by providing the "outside-in" adversary view. ThreatNG feeds the CAASM platform the unmanaged, shadow IT assets it cannot natively see, closing the external visibility gap.
Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) Platforms: GRC tools govern the authorized state of an organization based on internal policies and surveys. ThreatNG provides the satellite feed of observed reality. By continuously scanning the external environment, ThreatNG alerts the GRC platform when the technical reality—such as an exposed cloud bucket—drifts from the documented state and violates compliance frameworks.
Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS): BAS platforms simulate sophisticated attacks to validate defenses on known infrastructure. ThreatNG acts as the reconnaissance scout, feeding the BAS engine a dynamic list of exposed APIs and leaked credentials. This ensures the simulations test the neglected side doors where real breaches actually occur, rather than just the fortified front door.
