CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning

Bridging the Gap Between Security Metrics and Key Risk Indicators: An Empirical Framework for Vulnerability Prioritization

arXiv Security Archived Mar 17, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2603.12450v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Organisations overwhelmingly prioritize vulnerability remediation using Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) severity scores, yet CVSS classifiers achieve an Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPRC) of 0.011 on real-world exploitation data, near random chance. We propose a composite Key Risk Indicator grounded in expected-loss decomposition, integrating dimensions of threat, impact, and exposure. We evaluated the KRI framework against th

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Cryptography and Security [Submitted on 12 Mar 2026] Bridging the Gap Between Security Metrics and Key Risk Indicators: An Empirical Framework for Vulnerability Prioritization Emad Sherif, Iryna Yevseyeva, Vitor Basto-Fernandes, Allan Cook Organisations overwhelmingly prioritize vulnerability remediation using Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) severity scores, yet CVSS classifiers achieve an Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPRC) of 0.011 on real-world exploitation data, near random chance. We propose a composite Key Risk Indicator grounded in expected-loss decomposition, integrating dimensions of threat, impact, and exposure. We evaluated the KRI framework against the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog using a comprehensive dataset of 280,694 Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs). KRI achieves Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve (ROC-AUC) 0.927 and AUPRC 0.223 versus 0.747 and 0.011 for CVSS (24 percents, 20). Ablation analysis shows Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS) alone achieves AUPRC 0.365, higher than full KRI (0.223), confirming that EPSS and KRI serve distinct objectives: EPSS maximizes raw exploit detection, while KRI re-orders by impact and exposure, capturing 92.3 percents of impact-weighted remediation value at k=500 versus 82.6 percents for EPSS, and surfacing 1.75 more Critical-severity exploited CVEs. KRI's net benefit exceeds EPSS whenever the severity premium exceeds 2. While EPSS serves as a robust baseline for exploit detection, the KRI framework is the superior choice for organizations seeking to align remediation efforts with tangible risk reduction. Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Machine Learning (cs.LG) Cite as: arXiv:2603.12450 [cs.CR]   (or arXiv:2603.12450v1 [cs.CR] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.12450 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Iryna Yevseyeva [view email] [v1] Thu, 12 Mar 2026 21:05:22 UTC (695 KB) Access Paper: view license Current browse context: cs.CR < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-03 Change to browse by: cs cs.LG References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv Security
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Archived
    Mar 17, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗