Security Assessment with Partial Data 🔗

Scenario 🔗

You’re conducting an External Attack Surface Management (EASM) assessment
for target-company.com. Your automated security scanners have completed
their analysis, but the results are inconsistent:

• Vulnerability Scanner A: 12 high-risk vulnerabilities found
• Vulnerability Scanner B: 3 medium-risk vulnerabilities found
• Manual Analysis: Identified 1 critical business logic flaw
• Compliance Framework: NIS2 requirements indicate 85% compliance
• ZKB Assessment: Czech framework shows 78% compliance

Your Challenge 🔗

Synthesize these conflicting assessment results into a unified security rating
and risk profile. Consider:

1. Scanner reliability - Different tools have different accuracy rates
2. False positive rates - Some findings may not be exploitable
3. Business context - Not all vulnerabilities have equal business impact
4. Compliance requirements - Regulatory frameworks have specific weights
5. Manual analysis insights - Human expertise vs. automated findings

What You’ll Learn 🔗

• Multi-scanner result correlation techniques
• Risk scoring with incomplete information
• Compliance framework integration
• Business impact assessment methods
• Security rating methodology

Success Criteria 🔗

• Produce unified security rating (A-F grade)
• Justify scanner result discrepancies
• Map findings to compliance frameworks
• Provide confidence intervals for assessments