TechValidate Research on Kenna.VM

87 Case Studies – Page 1 of 3


Kenna.VM Case Study

Medium Enterprise Financial Services Company

Introduction

This case study of a medium enterprise financial services company is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • Not having a way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • CVSS 7+
    • CVSS 8+
    • CVSS 9+
    • CVSS 10+
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates and prioritizes vulnerabilities; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Reduction in Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR)
    • Kenna risk score reduction

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: over 75%
    • time spent on remediation: over 75%
    • time spent on reporting: over 75%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: superior
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

State & Local Government

Introduction

This case study of a state & local government is based on an October 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled organization asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“Kenna is the market leader in vulnerability management.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled organization to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • N/A

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed organization uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • CVSS 10+
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security and IT work together to investigate and prioritize.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • N/A

Results

The surveyed organization achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 1 – 10%
    • time spent on remediation: 10 – 25%
    • time spent on reporting: 10 – 25%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna is updated continuously with real-time information
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: inferior
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: on par
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Royal Bank of Canada (RBC)

Introduction

This case study of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service.

“We chose Kenna Security based on the performance and customer commitment.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • CVSS 8+
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security and IT work together to investigate and prioritize.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Reduction in reporting time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 10 – 25%
    • time spent on remediation: 1 – 10%
    • time spent on reporting: 25 – 50%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna aggregates data and reporting from multiple tools (vuln scanners, CMDB, discovery)
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): on par
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: on par
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: superior
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: on par

Kenna.VM Case Study

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated

Introduction

This case study of Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service.

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • A homegrown prioritization tool
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates and prioritizes vulnerabilities; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in IT remediation time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on remediation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on reporting: over 75%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: on par
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: on par
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: on par
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Introduction

This case study of Deloitte & Touche LLP is based on a January 2021 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service.

“Kenna risk meters and risk scores have completely changed the way we manage vulnerabilities and attack surface risk. Tracking risk scores over time are the core of leadership metrics. Top fixes and reducing risk scores over time drives our prioritized remediation strategy.”

“Our customer success manger has been excellent coordinating resolution to issues as well as keeping us informed of upcoming roadmap features that may affect us.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • Not having a way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities
    • Inefficiencies in vulnerability remediation

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • CVSS 9+
    • CVSS 10+
    • A rating system from scanner
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates and prioritizes vulnerabilities; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in IT remediation time
    • Reduction in reporting time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on remediation: 50 – 75%
    • time spent on reporting: 25 – 50%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
    • Kenna is updated continuously with real-time information
    • Kenna aggregates data and reporting from multiple tools (vuln scanners, CMDB, discovery)
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): highly superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: superior
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Global 500 Retail Company

Introduction

This case study of a Global 500 retail company is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • Not having a way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities
    • Inefficiencies in vulnerability remediation

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • A rating system from scanner
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates and prioritizes vulnerabilities; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Reduction in Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR)
    • Reduction in IT remediation time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on reporting: 25 – 50%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
    • Kenna is updated continuously with real-time information
    • Kenna includes multiple threat intel feeds (eliminating the need for subscription)
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: highly superior
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Medium Enterprise Automotive & Transport Company

Introduction

This case study of a medium enterprise automotive & transport company is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“Kenna.VM offers excellent results through ease of use and our experience with the Kenna CX team has been great”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • A homegrown prioritization tool
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security and IT work together to investigate and prioritize.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Reduction in Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR)
    • Reduction in vulnerability investigation time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 10 – 25%
    • time spent on remediation: 10 – 25%
    • time spent on reporting: 1 – 10%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: on par
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: on par

Kenna.VM Case Study

Global 500 Hospitality Company

Introduction

This case study of a Global 500 hospitality company is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

On Kenna.VM: “Kenna has provided a reporting solution that is easier to use for IT staff than our existing vulnerability assessment solution and can combine asset and vulnerability data.”

On Kenna Customer Success Team: “Our CSM and CSE have been very helpful in deployment, configuration, and troubleshooting issues.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making
    • Inefficiencies in vulnerability remediation

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • A rating system from scanner
    • A homegrown prioritization tool
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates; Security and IT work together to prioritize; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in IT remediation time
    • SLA adherence
    • Reduction in reporting time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 1 – 10%
    • time spent on remediation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on reporting: over 75%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
    • Kenna aggregates data and reporting from multiple tools (vuln scanners, CMDB, discovery)
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: on par
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: on par
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: inferior
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: on par

Kenna.VM Case Study

Large Enterprise Retail Company

Introduction

This case study of a large enterprise retail company is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

On Kenna.VM: “Ease of use, clear risk scoring and prioritization.”

On Kenna Customer Success Team: "Excellent – Knowledgeable, easy to contact. "

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • Not having a way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • A rating system from scanner
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates and prioritizes vulnerabilities; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Kenna risk score reduction

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on remediation: 10 – 25%
    • time spent on reporting: 50 – 75%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: superior
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Medium Enterprise Financial Services Company

Introduction

This case study of a medium enterprise financial services company is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“Kenna allowed us to tackle a large backlog of vulnerabilities and provide teams with real-time data. It eliminated outdated methods such as working off of and sending out spreadsheets.”

“Our (Kenna) Customer Success Engineer is extremely knowledgeable and if she doesn’t know the answer always works quickly to get the correct solution. "

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making
    • Inefficiencies in vulnerability remediation

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • A rating system from scanner
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates; Security and IT work together to prioritize; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • SLA adherence

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on remediation: 10 – 25%
    • time spent on reporting: 25 – 50%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna is updated continuously with real-time information
    • Kenna aggregates data and reporting from multiple tools (vuln scanners, CMDB, discovery)
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: superior
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

HSBC, USA

Introduction

This case study of HSBC USA Inc. is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service.

On working with CX Team:“knowledgeable and very helpful. Working with their engineers is always a productive experience”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • A homegrown prioritization tool
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security and IT work together to investigate and prioritize.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Reduction in Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR)
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in reporting time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on remediation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on reporting: 25 – 50%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
    • Kenna aggregates data and reporting from multiple tools (vuln scanners, CMDB, discovery)
    • Kenna’s cloud platform scales elastically to virtually any organization size
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): on par
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: on par
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: on par
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: superior
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Bank Of Hawaii Corporation

Introduction

This case study of Bank of Hawaii Corporation is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service.

“Kenna allows us to concentrate on vulnerabilities that pose a real risk to our environment and helps us prioritize remediation of this risk. This has enabled both the security and IT teams to reduce our organization’s risk score.”

“The customer success manager and customer success engineer have been very supportive in fixing any issues and helping with escalation if needed. (and) They have periodic check-ins to see how we are doing with the product.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • Not having a way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • A homegrown prioritization tool
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates; Security and IT work together to prioritize; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in vulnerability investigation time
    • Reduction in reporting time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 1 – 10%
    • time spent on remediation: 10 – 25%
    • time spent on reporting: 10 – 25%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: on par
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: on par
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Deloitte & Touche

Introduction

This case study of Deloitte & Touche is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service.

“With Kenna .VM, we are now able to prioritize vulnerabilities on the basis of the risk score.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • A rating system from scanner
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates and prioritizes vulnerabilities; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in reporting time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • Time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 10 – 25%
    • Time spent on remediation: 50 – 75%
    • Time spent on reporting: 10 – 25%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna is updated continuously with real-time information
    • Kenna aggregates data and reporting from multiple tools (vuln scanners, CMDB, discovery)
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • Remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • Integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: on par
    • Data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: highly superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Global 500 Insurance Company

Introduction

This case study of a Global 500 insurance company is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“The required scans provide valuable information regarding security risks to our organization.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • IT risk and security required scan

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • none
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as IT investigates, prioritizes and remediates; Security handles reporting.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Kenna risk score reduction

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • Time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 10 – 25%
    • Time spent on remediation: 10 – 25%
    • Time spent on reporting: 25 – 50%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna is updated continuously with real-time information
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • Remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • Integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • Data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: superior
    • Predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Medium Enterprise Professional Services Company

Introduction

This case study of a medium enterprise professional services company is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“Kenna was recommended to us as a great low-cost, high-value approach for a brand new EVM program. It enables rapid maturity at reasonable costs.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making
    • Not having a way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • A rating system from scanner
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates and prioritizes vulnerabilities; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Reduction in Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR)
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in IT remediation time
    • Reduction in reporting time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • Time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 25 – 50%
    • Time spent on remediation: 1 – 10%
    • Time spent on reporting: 25 – 50%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • Remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): highly superior
    • Integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: on par
    • Data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: superior
    • Predictive vulnerability modeling: on par

Kenna.VM Case Study

Large Enterprise Retail Company

Introduction

This case study of a large enterprise retail company is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“Even though we’re quite early in our vulnerability management program, Kenna is already adding context to the vulnerability count that we have, which makes it’s easier to have conversations with exec level individuals to gain momentum and buy-in from IT teams. "

“We’ve had a great experience with CX team: CSE has been knowledgeable for any questions, and CSM has been happy to assist with any queries we have.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making
    • Not having a way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • CVSS 10+
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates and prioritizes vulnerabilities; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Kenna risk score reduction

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 10 – 25%
    • time spent on remediation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on reporting: 50 – 75%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: on par
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: superior
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Large Enterprise Telecommunications Services Company

Introduction

This case study of a large enterprise telecommunications services company is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“Good tool and easy to use and configure.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • Take input from Nexpose
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates and prioritizes vulnerabilities; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Reduction in vulnerability investigation time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • Time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 10 – 25%
    • Time spent on remediation: 10 – 25%
    • Time spent on reporting: 10 – 25%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • Remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • Integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: on par
    • Data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • Predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Large Enterprise Hospitality Company

Introduction

This case study of a large enterprise hospitality company is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“Kenna.VM shows scoring which helps us to determine what is important to fix first.”

“Kenna.VM has a good reporting view for senior management to easily understand the risk of the server in their environment.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • Not having a way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • None
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates; IT prioritizes and remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in vulnerability investigation time
    • Reduction in IT remediation time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • Time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 50 – 75%
    • Time spent on remediation: 50 – 75%
    • Time spent on reporting: 50 – 75%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
    • Kenna is updated continuously with real-time information
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • Remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): highly superior
    • Integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • Data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: on par
    • Predictive vulnerability modeling: on par

Kenna.VM Case Study

Large Enterprise Hospitality Company

Introduction

This case study of a large enterprise hospitality company is based on a September 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“Kenna has allowed the organization to improve the investigation of critical vulnerabilities and track the time required to remediate those issues allowing the organization to be more focused on addressing critical vulnerabilities.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making
    • Not having a way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities
    • Inefficiencies in vulnerability remediation

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • CVSS 10+
    • A rating system from scanner
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates; IT prioritizes and remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Reduction in Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR)
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in vulnerability investigation time
    • Reduction in IT remediation time
    • SLA adherence
    • Reduction in reporting time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • Time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: over 75%
    • Time spent on remediation: 50 – 75%
    • Time spent on reporting: over 75%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
    • Kenna is updated continuously with real-time information
    • Kenna aggregates data and reporting from multiple tools (vuln scanners, CMDB, discovery)
    • Kenna includes multiple threat intel feeds (eliminating the need for subscription)
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • Remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • Integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • Data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: superior
    • Predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Global 500 Insurance Company

Introduction

This case study of a Global 500 insurance company is based on an October 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“Kenna has become our standard IT security tool to adhere to operational readiness review.”

“We work closely with our Customer Success Manager and Customer Success Engineer to resolve the mitigation and security risk findings.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making
    • Not having a way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities
    • Inefficiencies in vulnerability remediation

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • A rating system from scanner
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates; Security and IT work together to prioritize; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Reduction in Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR)
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in IT remediation time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • Time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 25 – 50%
    • Time spent on remediation: 25 – 50%
    • Time spent on reporting: 25 – 50%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
    • Kenna aggregates data and reporting from multiple tools (vuln scanners, CMDB, discovery)
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • Remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • Integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • Data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: superior
    • Predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Large Enterprise Insurance Company

Introduction

This case study of a large enterprise insurance company is based on an October 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“Kenna has helped us to spend less time determining risk and prioritizing actions that we can now spend focusing on remediation actions. "

“The customer success managers and engineers are an extremely important part of this service and help us to understand our needs, wants, and drive risk reduction.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making
    • Not having a way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities
    • Inefficiencies in vulnerability remediation

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • A rating system from scanner
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates and prioritizes vulnerabilities; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Reduction in Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR)
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in vulnerability investigation time
    • Reduction in reporting time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: over 75%
    • time spent on remediation: 50 – 75%
    • time spent on reporting: over 75%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
    • Kenna is updated continuously with real-time information
    • Kenna includes multiple threat intel feeds (eliminating the need for subscription)
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): highly superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: highly superior
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: highly superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: on par
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: on par

Kenna.VM Case Study

State & Local Government

Introduction

This case study of a state & local government is based on a November 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled organization asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“Providing insight and prioritization into our organization’s vulnerabilities, in an intelligible and logical manner.”

“The customer success team is excellent and one of the best parts of the service.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled organization to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • Not having a way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed organization uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • A homegrown prioritization tool
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates; Security and IT work together to prioritize; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Reduction in Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR)
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in IT remediation time
    • Reduction in reporting time

Results

The surveyed organization achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 1 – 10%
    • time spent on remediation: 1 – 10%
    • time spent on reporting: 1 – 10%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna includes multiple threat intel feeds (eliminating the need for subscription)
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): highly superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: highly superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: highly superior
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Mattel, Inc.

Introduction

This case study of Mattel, Inc. is based on a November 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service.

“I have been using Kenna for more than a year now and I am very impressed with the platform, Support and how it helped us to rethink our Vulnerability Management process and make it more efficient.”

“By utilizing Kenna we are now able to easily collect the vulnerability related data from different sources at Mattel and bring them in a single repository where we can easily search, view and rank the vulnerabilities, identify the priorities, easily share the information and give access to different teams to start working on the remediation. I haven’t seen the collection of all these capabilities in any other product.”

“I have been lucky to work with our CX team since I started working with Kenna. I can say that they have been the reason for our success in implementing Kenna at Mattel. They are always available to help me with my questions and help with the implementation. I am very happy with the support.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making
    • Inefficiencies in vulnerability remediation

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • CVSS 8+
    • A rating system from scanner
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates; Security and IT work together to prioritize; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Reduction in Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR)
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in vulnerability investigation time
    • Reduction in IT remediation time
    • Reduction in reporting time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on remediation: 50 – 75%
    • time spent on reporting: 10 – 25%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
    • Kenna is updated continuously with real-time information
    • Kenna aggregates data and reporting from multiple tools (vuln scanners, CMDB, discovery)
    • Kenna includes multiple threat intel feeds (eliminating the need for subscription)
    • Kenna’s cloud platform scales elastically to virtually any organization size
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): highly superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: highly superior
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: highly superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: highly superior
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: highly superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Medium Enterprise Pharmaceuticals Company

Introduction

This case study of a medium enterprise pharmaceuticals company is based on a November 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • Not having a way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities
    • Inefficiencies in vulnerability remediation

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • CVSS 8+
    • CVSS 9+
    • CVSS 10+
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates; Security and IT work together to prioritize; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Reduction in reporting time

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on remediation: over 75%
    • time spent on reporting: 10 – 25%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: on par
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: on par

Kenna.VM Case Study

Medium Enterprise Insurance Company

Introduction

This case study of a medium enterprise insurance company is based on a November 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

" Kenna.VM has allowed the cyber team to effectively view and provide remediation advice for vulnerabilities."

“Our CX team has been great!”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • A homegrown prioritization tool
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security investigates; Security and IT work together to prioritize; IT remediates.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • SLA adherence

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on remediation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on reporting: 25 – 50%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: superior
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: highly superior
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna.VM Case Study

Medium Enterprise Healthcare Company

Introduction

This case study of a medium enterprise healthcare company is based on a November 2020 survey of Kenna.VM customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“Moved us away from reactive CVSS scoring to real risk based remediation. "

“Experience has been solid even post ink drying on the check. I get what I need in a reasonable amount of time and submitting cases via the portal is quick, intuitive, and simple = job well done there! "

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna.VM:

  • The vulnerability management challenges they were experiencing that led them to implement the Kenna.VM:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making
    • Not having a way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna.VM that the surveyed company uses:

  • The approach they used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • CVSS 8+
    • CVSS 9+
    • CVSS 10+
  • They best describe their current engagement model between the Security and IT team as Security and IT work together to investigate and prioritize.
  • The criteria they use to evaluate the success of your Kenna.VM implementation:
    • Reduction in Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR)
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • SLA adherence

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna.VM:

  • Before Kenna vs. After Kenna: Have you seen a reduction in time spent on the following activities? (Security and IT team time combined)
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on remediation: 25 – 50%
    • time spent on reporting: 10 – 25%
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells me what I need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in our environment
    • Kenna is updated continuously with real-time information
  • Rates the following for Kenna.VM compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
    • remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): superior
    • integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: superior
    • data science-based risk scoring methodology: on par
    • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: on par
    • predictive vulnerability modeling: superior

Kenna Security Case Study

Fortune 500 Automotive & Transport Company

Introduction

This case study of a Fortune 500 automotive & transport company is based on an October 2019 survey of Kenna Security customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“Helps us to prioritize vulnerabilities based on risk. Helps us to maintain focus on what’s important to our environment. "

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna Security:

  • Vulnerability management challenges they experienced that led them to implement the Kenna Security Platform:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna Security that the surveyed company uses:

  • Approaches used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • CVSS 9+
    • CVSS 10
  • When asked what best describes their current engagement model between the Security and IT team, they said that Security investigates and prioritizes vulnerabilities; IT remediates.
  • How they evaluate the success of their Kenna Security platform implementation:
    • Reduction in number of high risk vulnerabilities
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells them what they need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
    • Kenna is updated continuously with real-time information
    • Kenna includes multiple threat intel feeds (eliminating the need for subscription)

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna Security:

  • Reduction of time spent on the following activities, since using Kenna:
  • Kenna Security Platform compared to other vulnerability management solutions:
  • Remediation Intelligence (guidance on “what to fix first”): Superior
  • Integrated real-time global exploit intelligence: Superior
  • Data science-based risk scoring methodology: Superior
  • “Off the shelf” integrations with a wide range of security data sources: On par
  • Predictive vulnerability modeling: Superior

Kenna Security Case Study

Vendavo, Inc.

Introduction

This case study of Vendavo, Inc. is based on an October 2019 survey of Kenna Security customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service.

“I’ve used Kenna in the past as well as at my current employer. Kenna is hands down the best tool set for it’s intended audience hands down! Prioritizing patching efforts has been dramatically improved in our organization.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna Security:

  • Vulnerability management challenges they experienced that led them to implement the Kenna Security Platform:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making
    • No way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities
    • Inefficiencies in vulnerability remediation

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna Security that the surveyed company uses:

  • Approaches used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • Homegrown prioritization tool
  • How they evaluate the success of their Kenna Security platform implementation:
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in vulnerability investigation time
    • Reduction in IT remediation time
    • Reduction in reporting time
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells them what they need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in their environment
    • Kenna is updated continuously with real-time information
    • Kenna aggregates data and reporting from multiple tools (vuln scanners, CMDB, discovery)
    • Kenna includes multiple threat intel feeds (eliminating the need for subscription)
    • Kenna’s cloud platform scales elastically to virtually any organization size

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna Security:

  • Reduction of time spent on the following activities, since using Kenna:
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: over 75%
    • time spent on remediation: over 10%
    • time spent on reporting: over 75%

Kenna Security Case Study

Peapod, Llc

Introduction

This case study of Peapod, LLC is based on an October 2019 survey of Kenna Security customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service.

“Leaders have a way to see our posture in one view. If they require more details they can drill down into each Risk Meter for the desired info.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna Security:

  • Vulnerability management challenges they experienced that led them to implement the Kenna Security Platform:
    • Too many vulnerabilities with no way to effectively prioritize
    • High volume of security data lacking context for decision making
    • No way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities
    • Inefficiencies in vulnerability remediation

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna Security that the surveyed company uses:

  • Approaches used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • Use rating system from scanner
  • How they evaluate the success of their Kenna Security platform implementation:
    • Reduction in Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR)
    • Kenna risk score reduction
    • Reduction in vulnerability investigation time
    • Reduction in IT remediation time
    • SLA Adherence
    • Reduction in reporting time
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells them what they need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)
    • Kenna provides awareness of how much risk is in their environment
    • Kenna is updated continuously with real-time information

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna Security:

  • Reduction of time spent on the following activities, since using Kenna:
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: over 75%
    • time spent on remediation: over 75%
    • time spent on reporting: over 25%

Kenna Security Case Study

Large Enterprise Professional Services Company

Introduction

This case study of a large enterprise professional services company is based on an October 2019 survey of Kenna Security customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service. The profiled company asked to have their name blinded to protect their confidentiality.

“Articulates and brings the risk to table in a very cognitive and realistic manner.”

Challenges

The business challenges that led the profiled company to evaluate and ultimately select Kenna Security:

  • Vulnerability management challenges they experienced that led them to implement the Kenna Security Platform:
    • No way to quantify or measure risk from vulnerabilities

Use Case

The key features and functionalities of Kenna Security that the surveyed company uses:

  • Approaches used to prioritize vulnerabilities prior to Kenna:
    • CVSS 10
  • How they evaluate the success of their Kenna Security platform implementation:
    • Reduction in Mean Time To Remediate (MTTR)
  • Kenna’s primary advantage(s) over other vulnerability management platforms:
    • Kenna goes beyond basic risk scoring and tells them what they need to fix first
    • Kenna provides meaningful and actionable data for remediation (remediation intelligence)

Results

The surveyed company achieved the following results with Kenna Security:

  • Reduction of time spent on the following activities, since using Kenna:
    • time spent on Vulnerability Investigation: over 75%
    • time spent on remediation: over 75%
    • time spent on reporting: over 75%
  • Kenna Security Platform compared to other vulnerability management solutions:



More Research on Kenna.VM