Demystify CWE Top 25 in 2024 is it still applicable? Methodology, Insights, and the Path to Better Application Security and how ASPM-AI can help

CWE Top 25 ASPM Vulnerability Managment Cybersecurity MITRE

CWE and CWE Top 25 (published every year by MITRE) can be a beneficial ally to understanding vulnerabilities, but the vulnerability management teams and application security teams often shy away from this methodology and categorization because it is obscure; the time has come to clarify and show how ASPM technology and AI pattern matching, as well as classification and inference, can help to close the gap in the 48% and more unclassified vulnerabilities.

What is CWE?

The Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE), a community-developed list of software and hardware weakness types, has released its annual “Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses” for 2024 for application security and vulnerability management teams; we discover in this blog the patterns and the main categories of the new CWE top 25. 

Note this page makes use of embedded diagrams. If you can’t see the interactive diagrams, please disable frames blocking.

We will cover in detail a comparison of the CWE top 25 across the years and across datasets. One of the new objectives is to simplify the classification in macro categories (e.g. Memory corruption and Auth bypass). We will mix AI mapping technique, vector description, and already existing analysis (CWE 1400 and CWE 1000 views)

cwe, CISA Kev, CWE Top 25, op 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses, Common Weakness Enumeration, ASPM
CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses for 2024 compared to 2023 and CISA KEV

What are CWE’s top 25 useful for? 

Threat actors constantly evolve their tactics, and defenders need accurate intelligence—both on the most exploited weaknesses and the best ways to mitigate them. The 2024 CWE Top 25 list serves as an indication to identify and prioritize these vulnerabilities, spotlighting the weaknesses that attackers frequently exploit in real-world scenarios. 

Nonetheless, sometimes it can be totally misleading depending on the attack vector you look at, cwe in ransomware vs verified vulnerabilities are divergent. 

In this article, we’ll dive into how this year’s list was created, how AI-driven mapping was used to augment CVE data, and why factors like CISA KEV references, VulnCheck Kev, Exploitability metrics, and Ransomware usage all play a role in shaping the CWE Top 25. We’ll then explore each CWE in the 2024 list—observing where the rankings diverge and converge—and discuss how ASPM (Application Security Posture Management) and unified vulnerability management can help organizations tackle the most critical threats.

Why CWE is important in Application Security and Vulnerability management and how ASPM can help

Understanding the CWE Top 25 Methodology

The Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) project for 2024 analyzed thousands of public vulnerability disclosures (i.e., CVE records) spanning June 1, 2023, to June 1, 2024. Each CVE typically contains basic information like a short description, the affected products, and a severity rating—often using CVSS v3.0 or v3.1. However, the CVE data isn’t always at the “root cause” level of detail necessary for precise application security insights.

Frequency and Severity

To generate the CWE Top 25, the project considers:

Frequency: How many CVE records are mapped to the same CWE over the observed period?

Severity (CVSS): The average CVSS score of vulnerabilities that map to a given CWE, reflecting exploitability and potential impact.

By combining these metrics, the CWE team calculates a Danger Score, ensuring that frequent and harmful weaknesses appear near the top.

How ASPM Can help?


An Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) solution excels at identifying and tracking common vulnerability patterns that pose the highest risk—especially in externally facing systems.

By correlating these patterns with real-world attack data (e.g., ransomware entry vectors), ASPM highlights the issues that most urgently need remediation, such as remote code execution flaws or buffer overflows that advanced attackers exploit.

This approach lets security engineers and product owners view vulnerabilities in terms of both business impact and threat patterns, ensuring that resources go to systemic fixes rather than ad hoc patches.

Some examples:

  • Focusing on assets that have common patterns of vulnerabilities that are externally or semi-externally facing
  • Fixing systemically vulnerabilities by looking at common patterns in an ASPM is perfect for this function
  • Picturing to engineers and product owner vulnerabilities in terms of impacts and patterns: e.g., this application is exposing the team to remote code execution and buffer overflow, which are two common vectors and impacts used by ransomware and zero-day to exploit organization.

Get an Assessment of the common root cause and patterns in your vulnerabilities

What is the benefit of looking at vulnerabilities by Categories? 

Attack Methods, Ransomware, CWE  Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses, Common Weakness Enumeration

Looking at the pattern of categories can help compare the frequency of the dataset; one aspect of comparison can answer the question of what is the top mistake the team is making or what are the common patterns that expose us to vulnerabilities? an ASPM can supercharge security engineers with those key insights

It is much more powerful to mention the most significant categories of vulnerabilities present in ransomware. What are the most significant categories of vulnerabilities that are used in verified exploits

Zero Day, Ransomware,  Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses, Common Weakness Enumeration

What are the challenges in CWE, and how ASPM and AI-assisted mapping with Key-Phrase Extraction can help

One of the biggest challenges is ensuring that each CVE record is correctly mapped to the correct CWE. Historically, analysts might choose high-level CWEs (e.g., “CWE-200: Information Exposure”) even though a more precise “Base” or “Variant” exists. To improve accuracy, the CWE team used AI-driven keyword matching and natural language processing to:

1. Identify key phrases in the CVE descriptions (e.g., “SQL injection,” “Use After Free,” “Path Traversal”).

2. Suggest a more appropriate root-cause CWE based on the CVE’s text and existing known vulnerabilities.

3. Suggest super categories with summaries of vulnerabilities 

This AI-augmented approach helped address mis-mapped vulnerabilities and ensure the final 2024 CWE Top 25 more accurately reflects real-world security issues—particularly those relevant for Ransomware attacks, CISA KEV advisories, and VulnCheck data.

From the restoring, those are the following categories (analysis and restoring is limited to the 2017-2024 vulnerability) 

 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses, Common Weakness Enumeration

Largest Rank Gainers and Fallers

Biggest Upward Shifts

CWE-400 (Uncontrolled Resource Consumption): Jumped significantly (up 13), reflecting more frequent or severe resource-exhaustion bugs being reported.

CWE-200 (Exposure of Sensitive Information): Also rose by 13, suggesting a growing volume of data-exposure flaws.

CWE-94 (Improper Control of Generation of Code): Climbed by 12; often misused when mapping “remote code execution,” but this year’s analysis shows more precise root-cause classification.

CWE-269 (Improper Privilege Management): Up 7; indicates more vulnerabilities found where users can escalate rights.

CWE-863 (Incorrect Authorization): Up 6; a subset of broken authorization that creeps higher each year.

Biggest Downward Shifts

CWE-20 (Improper Input Validation): Fell by 6; chain analysis was less frequent this year, so many “input validation” issues were mapped directly to more final CWEs like XSS or SQLi.

CWE-476 (NULL Pointer Dereference): Dropped 9; might still appear often, but real-world exploits focusing on deeper memory flaws overshadow it.

CWE-190 (Integer Overflow or Wraparound): Also dropped 9; fewer chain mappings (like integer overflow leading to buffer overflows) were used in 2024 data.

CWE-306 (Missing Authentication for Critical Function): Down 5; overshadowed by other Access Control weaknesses that rose in rank.

2. Most Frequent “Overall Categories”

Looking across the “Overall Category” or “Software Cat” columns, we see:

1. Access Control

• Appears multiple times across CWEs like CWE-287 (Improper Authentication), CWE-862 (Missing Authorization), CWE-863 (Incorrect Authorization), CWE-306 (Missing Authentication for Critical Function), CWE-798 (Hard-Coded Credentials), CWE-269 (Improper Privilege Management), CWE-918 (SSRF).

• In total, roughly 7 entries revolve around Access Control, making it the largest single category in the Top 25.

2. Memory Safety

• CWEs such as CWE-119, 787, 125, 416, and sometimes 476 appear under or near “Memory Safety.”

• With around 4–5 direct memory-corruption flaws, it’s the second largest category block.

3. Injection

• Includes CWE-78 (OS Command Injection), 77 (Command Injection), 89 (SQL Injection).

XSS (CWE-79) is often “Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)” rather than strictly “Injection” in the data, but in many industry references, it’s grouped there. Either way, injection issues remain extremely common.

4. Resource & Lifecycle Management

• Includes CWE-400 (Uncontrolled Resource Consumption), 434 (Unrestricted File Upload), etc., though fewer than in Access Control or Memory Safety.

Few Single Mentions

Sensitive Information Exposure (e.g., 200),

Poor Coding Practices (e.g., 476),

Insufficient Verification (e.g., 352 for CSRF), • And several “#N/A” or unique subcategories.

2. The 2024 CWE Top 25: Convergence and Divergence

The 2024 CWE Top 25 includes classic web vulnerabilities like CWE-79 (Cross-Site Scripting) and CWE-89 (SQL Injection) but also delves into memory-safety issues such as CWE-787 (Out-of-Bounds Write) and CWE-125 (Out-of-Bounds Read). Here’s a high-level look at some major trends, plus noteworthy divergences in rank across different data sources (e.g., Bug Bounty Popularity, CISA KEV, VulnCheck Kev, and Ransomware usage).

2.1 Where Rankings Converge

CWE-79 (Cross-site Scripting) is consistently high in Bug Bounty reports due to the prevalence of XSS in web applications. Although it has fewer CISA KEV references, it still tops the “most reported” list, indicating its frequency is off the charts.

CWE-89 (SQL Injection) remains a formidable threat across all data sets. Even if it’s not always the #1 in real-world exploitation, it continues to appear in VulnCheck references, bug bounty activity, and underscores the importance of secure coding practices for database queries.

Memory Corruption Flaws like CWE-787 (Out-of-Bounds Write) often appear in the top 5 or 6 for CISA KEV because they lead to remote code execution that attackers can reliably weaponize.

2.2 Where Rankings Diverge

CWE-94 (Improper Control of Generation of Code) and CWE-77 (Command Injection) soared in rank partly because the AI mapping recognized many vulnerabilities labeled generically as “code execution” or “command injection” and mapped them more precisely. Historically, many such CVEs might have been lumped into high-level categories.

CWE-20 (Improper Input Validation) dropped down several positions as chain analysis (e.g., from “input validation flaw leads to XSS”) was not frequently used this year. Many CVEs that might be partially attributed to bad input validation are instead mapped directly to the more “final” vulnerability type (e.g., XSS or SQLi).

Path Traversal (CWE-22) soared in Ransomware usage data, which indicates that attackers frequently use local file read/write issues to pivot or escalate.

CWE Top 25, Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses, Common Weakness Enumeration, NVD, KEV, CISA KEV, ASPM, Phoenix Security

Key Insights into Exploitability, CISA KEV, and Ransomware

1. Exploitability:

• Many memory-based CWEs rank high for exploitability on the CVSS scale, as they can yield full code execution. ASPM Can help providing patterns and Exploitability evidence

• In application security, injection vulnerabilities remain easier to exploit if an attacker can find a web endpoint that accepts unvalidated user inputs. An ASPM can help identify vulnerability patterns and guide engineers through the systemic resolution of vulnerabilities.

2. CISA KEV (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities):

• Often highlight advanced or high-profile memory bugs (e.g., Use After Free #416) or OS command injection issues (#78).

• These references confirm that the vulnerabilities are used in the wild, especially by APT groups targeting unpatched systems.

3. VulnCheck Kev:

• This dataset also shows a strong interest in OS command injection and memory flaws. It underscores how quickly proof-of-concept (PoC) exploits appear online.

4. Ransomware:

• Driven more by “practical” exploits that provide immediate data access or privilege escalation (e.g., Path Traversal, Hard-coded Credentials).

• Surprising to some, Cross-Site Scripting is less of a direct ransomware vector, though it remains a top web vulnerability.

4. How ASPM and Unified Vulnerability Management Help

Modern Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) platforms aim to give organizations a unified view of all vulnerabilities, correlating the severity (CVSS base scores), exploit availability (CISA KEV, VulnCheck), real-world usage (like in Ransomware), and even internal business context. When integrated with a robust vulnerability management pipeline, ASPM can:

1. Prioritize by Threat Context:

• If a vulnerability is flagged in CISA KEV as actively exploited, that goes to the top of the remediation queue—especially if it’s found on an external-facing system.

2. Automate Remediation Workflows:

• ASPM tools can open tickets in real-time or integrate with DevOps pipelines to fix code-level issues. For instance, if an SCA tool finds a library with a known #502 (Insecure Deserialization) exploit, it can suggest immediate upgrades or patches.

3. Consolidate Insights:

• By bringing together Bug Bounty data, internal testing results, and intelligence feeds (like VulnCheck or open-source PoCs), security teams see how a specific CWE ranks. That helps them reduce attack surface faster.

4. Provide Executive Visibility:

• Security leaders can demonstrate how they tackle the top exploited or trending vulnerabilities, tying these efforts to compliance or business impact. Clear, data-driven priorities help justify budgets and show metrics improvement over time.

Comparing Dataset

Get in control of your Application Security posture and Vulnerability management

Ransomware Attacks (direct and indirect insights)

Quick Insight: (Note how Path Traversal (#5 overall) shoots to #1 for ransomware usage, while common web vulns like XSS fall behind.)

CWE Top 25, Ransomware, Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses, Common Weakness Enumeration, NVD, KEV, CISA KEV, ASPM, Phoenix Security

Ransomware Rank Overall Rank CWE Name (Short) Used in Ransom Category / Notable Mapping

YearCWE T25 RankRansomwareCWEVulnerability DescriptionCategorySoftware CatOverall CategoryUSED IN RANSOM
202451CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (‘Path Traversal’)#N/A#N/ABroken Access Control29
2024122CWE-20Improper Input Validation#N/A#N/A#N/A24
2024163CWE-502Deserialization of Untrusted DataResource ControlResource ControlResource Control24
202434CWE-89Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command (‘SQL Injection’)#N/A#N/AInjection21
2024155CWE-269Improper Privilege ManagementAccess ControlAccess ControlAccess Control19
202476CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (‘OS Command Injection’)#N/A#N/AInjection18
2024147CWE-287Improper AuthenticationAccess ControlAccess ControlAccess Control17
202428CWE-787Out-of-bounds WriteMemory SafetyMemory SafetyMemory Safety14
2024189CWE-863 Incorrect AuthorizationAccess ControlAccess ControlAccess Control12
20241110CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code (‘Code Injection’)#N/A#N/A#N/A11

NVD Data Comparison

Quick Data Insight: (Memory and injection flaws dominate NVD volumes, with some big jumps for classic buffer issues.)

CWE Top 25, NVD, Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses, Common Weakness Enumeration, NVD, KEV, CISA KEV, ASPM, Phoenix Security

NVD Rank Overall Rank CWE Name (Short) NVD Total Category / Notable Mapping

NVD RankNVD  TOTALCWE T25 RankCWEVulnerability DescriptionCategorySoftware CatOvearall CategoryNVD NewNVD Total
121CWE-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (‘Cross-site Scripting’)#N/A#N/ACross-Site Scripting (XSS)483030437
2120CWE-119Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory BufferMemory SafetyMemory SafetyMemory Safety319837039
333CWE-89Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command (‘SQL Injection’)#N/A#N/AInjection206412912
4614CWE-287Improper AuthenticationAccess ControlAccess ControlAccess Control9479249
5104CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)Insufficient Verification of Data AuthenticityInsufficient Verification of Data AuthenticityInsufficient Verification of Data Authenticity8806215
6149CWE-862 Missing AuthorizationAccess ControlAccess ControlAccess Control8803068
71113CWE-77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (‘Command Injection’)#N/A#N/AInjection8365808
885CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (‘Path Traversal’)#N/A#N/ABroken Access Control8246650
942CWE-787Out-of-bounds WriteMemory SafetyMemory SafetyMemory Safety78710126
10717CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized ActorSensitive Information ExposureSensitive Information ExposureSensitive Information Exposure7388981

CISA Kev, Vulnceck Kev – Divergence

The CISA KEV / Common Weakness and Vulncheck diverge quite much, below you can find the tables of the yearly and total number of vulnerabilities analyzed

CWE Top 25, Cisa Kev, Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses, Common Weakness Enumeration, NVD, KEV, CISA KEV, ASPM, Phoenix Security

The two datasets take into account the op exploited vulnerability types

Comparison with Vulncheck and Cisa

CISA KEV RankOverall RankCWEName (Short)CISA KEVCategory / Notable Mapping\
12CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write18Memory corruption\
211CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code (Code Injection)7Injection\
37CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command5OS Command Injection (OWASP A03:2021 Injection)\
48CWE-416Use After Free5Memory corruption\
516CWE-502Deserialization of Untrusted Data5Insecure Deserialization\
625CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Function5Auth bypass\
73CWE-89SQL Injection4Injection (OWASP A03:2021)\
85CWE-22Path Traversal4Broken Access Control / Path Restriction\
913CWE-77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command4Command Injection (OWASP A03:2021)\
1014CWE-287Improper Authentication4Broken Authentication (OWASP)\

Comparison between Vulncheck KEV/CISA

CISA RankCWE RankVulncheck RankCWENameKev/YearTotal KevVulnCheck/YearVulnCheck Reference/YearTotal VulnCheck
471#7878 – Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (‘OS Command Injection’)1161902914318
652#22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (‘Path Traversal’)1048711381259
15103#434Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type11633105998
16174#200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor1211947963
13195#918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)182637255
19116#94Improper Control of Generation of Code (‘Code Injection’)039730450
727CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write97726243259
5168#502Deserialization of Untrusted Data103534160113
2149#287Improper Authentication16247192228
31310#77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (‘Command Injection’)122211368339

Bug Bounty

Quick View: (XSS (#79) dwarfs everything else in bug bounty volumes. SQLi (#89) is also extremely common.)

Bug Bounty, CWE, ASPM, Phoenix Security

This data collects the top reports across years for Bug bounty:

CWE T25 RankBB RankCWEVulnerability DescriptionCategorySoftware CatOverall CategoryRankBB Popularity
11#79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (‘Cross-site Scripting’)#N/A#N/ACross-Site Scripting (XSS)TOP25-24-1103,215
172#200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized ActorSensitive Information ExposureSensitive Information ExposureSensitive Information ExposureTOP25-24-1772,531
143#287Improper AuthenticationAccess ControlAccess ControlAccess ControlTOP25-24-1421,196
44#352Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)Insufficient Verification of Data AuthenticityInsufficient Verification of Data AuthenticityInsufficient Verification of Data AuthenticityTOP25-24-415,310
35#89Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command (‘SQL Injection’)#N/A#N/AInjectionTOP25-24-39,787
116#94Improper Control of Generation of Code (‘Code Injection’)#N/A#N/A#N/ATOP25-24-118,132
197#918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)Access ControlAccess ControlAccess ControlTOP25-24-197,852
248#400Uncontrolled Resource ConsumptionResource Lifecycle ManagementResource Lifecycle ManagementResource Lifecycle ManagementTOP25-24-246,191
59CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (‘Path Traversal’)#N/A#N/ABroken Access ControlTOP25-24-54,876
1310CWE-77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (‘Command Injection’)#N/A#N/AInjectionTOP25-24-134,625

Looking Ahead

The 2024 CWE Top 25 is a snapshot of the most dangerous vulnerabilities, pulling from CVEs, advanced threat intelligence, and AI-driven analysis. Key takeaways include:

Injection vulnerabilities (CWE-79, 78, 89, etc.) remain extremely pervasive, whether you look at Bug Bounty popularity or real-world Exploitability data.

Memory corruption issues still appear in top positions, particularly for CISA KEV references, reflecting advanced exploitation by nation-states or ransomware operators.

Ransomware data highlights increased interest in vulnerability classes that facilitate file reading, credential stealing, or direct code execution—CWE-22, 269, and 20 all factor into these attacks.

• The improved AI-assisted methodology for mapping CVEs to CWE root causes yields more accurate insights into which vulnerabilities truly matter.

By combining application security best practices, unified vulnerability management, and an ASPM approach, organizations can quickly identify, prioritize, and remediate the Top Exploited Vulnerabilities highlighted in the 2024 CWE Top 25. Doing so helps reduce attack surfaces, mitigate real-time threats like Ransomware, and protect businesses from the evolving threat landscape.

Final Thoughts

Stay Aligned with CWE: Continuously consult the CWE Top 25 and new methodology updates.

Monitor KEVs: Keep up with CISA KEV and VulnCheck Kev references to understand which CWEs are exploited actively.

Adopt ASPM: A unified vulnerability management and application security posture management strategy ensures you’re not just patching the loudest alarms but also prioritizing truly top trending weaknesses with high exploit potential. The end goal is clear: leveraging rich, AI-enhanced vulnerability data, aligning with CWE best practices, and integrating advanced ASPM to safeguard the organization from both common pitfalls (XSS, SQLi) and sophisticated threats (memory corruption, code injection). Security teams can confidently mitigate risks and keep pace with ever-shifting adversary tactics by understanding and addressing these vulnerabilities.

Conclusion: Combining CWE Top 25 with Real-World Intelligence

Comparative Data: Cross-referencing the 2024 CWE Top 25 against CISA KEV, VulnCheck, and ransomware usage reveals meaningful divergences—particularly around memory safety vs. web injection or path traversal vs. XSS.

AI-Assisted Mapping: Thanks to improved classification methods, the list is more precise than ever—reducing “noise” and clarifying truly relevant root causes.

ASPM Integration: By pairing the CWE framework with unified vulnerability management tools, you gain a complete picture of exploit potential, business impact, and attacker behavior.

Ultimately, the CWE Top 25 is no silver bullet—it’s a foundation. When layered with intelligence feeds and next-gen ASPM, it helps security teams shrink the “unclassified” gap and confidently tackle the vulnerabilities that matter most to their specific threat landscape— ransomware, nation-state exploits, or everyday bug bounty findings.

Pro Tip: Focus on the categories—Access Control still dominates the list, while Memory Safety leads to advanced exploitation. Then overlay your environment’s data (e.g., is OS code a prime target? Are you mostly web-based?) to shape your 2024 security roadmap.

How can Phoenix Security Help

Phoenix traces CVE and CWE dynamically, offering you an overview of the top CWE in your organization.

Phoenix also trace the top CVE and CWE that teams introduce

Phoenix security cutting-edge contextual risk-based algorithms enable organizations to prioritize application security vulnerabilities based on context and probability of exploitation and present a unified impact analysis.

The cutting-edge vulnerability selection engine enables organizations to set risk-based targets that translate into specific actions for engineers. 

Get in control of your Application Security posture and Vulnerability management

Moreover, Phoenix Security’s correlation capabilities can help organizations link the activities in the code with the context in the shift-right part, ensuring that issues are identified and addressed proactively. Using Phoenix Security’s scorecard, organizations can create a common language between the security, development, and business teams, ensuring everyone is aligned and focused on achieving the same goals.

shift smart, risk based, vulnerability management, phoenix security

Finally, Phoenix Security’s ability to create risk-based profiles can help organizations translate their security goals into dynamic and smart targets for engineers. By using risk-based profiles, engineers can prioritize their work and focus on the most critical issues, ensuring they effectively use their time and resources.

Overall, by leveraging Phoenix Security’s powerful capabilities, organizations can implement a smart, risk-based approach to software development that ensures the success of their initiatives while minimizing risk and improving overall efficiency. With Phoenix Security as their partner, organizations can feel confident they are taking a proactive approach to software development aligned with their business objectives and goals.

Francesco is an internationally renowned public speaker, with multiple interviews in high-profile publications (eg. Forbes), and an author of numerous books and articles, who utilises his platform to evangelize the importance of Cloud security and cutting-edge technologies on a global scale.

Discuss this blog with our community on Slack

Join our AppSec Phoenix community on Slack to discuss this blog and other news with our professional security team

From our Blog

Are never-ending critical alerts leaving you scrambling? Explore how reachability analysis identifies vulnerabilities that truly matter, saving your teams from needless patch frenzies. This session, hosted by the OWASP NYC Chapter, uncovers the latest insights in ASPM, remediation techniques, and application security best practices. Attendees learn how to streamline vulnerability management through practical examples, advanced risk scoring, and live demonstrations of container-based architectures. Expect lively discussions, real-world success stories, and expert tips on targeting only the exploitable weaknesses—rather than chasing every single alert in your backlog.
Francesco Cipollone
The cybersecurity landscape is evolving rapidly, demanding a threat-centric, risk-based approach to vulnerability management. With the U.S. favoring voluntary guidelines and Europe enforcing stricter regulations, organizations must navigate compliance while focusing on real exploitability over CVE volume. This blog delves into ASPM, cloud security, and regulatory intelligence, exploring how businesses can move beyond the traditional patch-and-pray model to address root cause vulnerabilities before they become critical risks.
Francesco Cipollone
Enhance your vulnerability management with Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) and reachability analysis. Discover how ASPM helps prioritize exploitable vulnerabilities, reduce security noise, and improve risk management. Learn about advanced techniques like code and container reachability, contextual deduplication, and Phoenix Security’s cutting-edge solutions for smarter, more effective application security.
Francesco Cipollone
The 2024 CWE Top 25 is out, and it’s no casual stroll through the vulnerability garden—especially when ransomware operators are busy planting path traversal exploits, while bug bounty hunters dig up endless injection flaws. In this blog, we examine the biggest risers, the most surprising dips, and the divergence between real-world exploit data and official CWE rankings. We’ll also reveal how AI-driven ASPM (Application Security Posture Management) and Phoenix Security’s contextual risk-based approach unite to help you focus on your most pressing threats. After all, not all flaws are created equal—some are simply more mischievous than others.
Francesco Cipollone
The 2024 CWE Top 25 list highlights the most dangerous software weaknesses. This article explores the methodology behind the list and how AI is improving threat detection. Discover how Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) and unified vulnerability management can help organizations address these critical threats.
Francesco Cipollone
Phoenix Security kicks off 2025 with recognition from Gartner Digital Markets through GetApp, solidifying its position as a leader in Application Security Posture Management (ASPM). Recognised for best customer success and support in ASPM, Phoenix Security empowers organisations with comprehensive, contextual vulnerability management and actionable cybersecurity solutions. With a user-friendly interface, robust real-time monitoring, and seamless risk prioritisation, the platform reduces alert fatigue while delivering precise remediation. As a cloud security leader, Phoenix Security continues to innovate, partnering with enterprises like LastPass and ClearBank to tackle the modern cybersecurity landscape head-on.
Francesco Cipollone
Derek

Derek Fisher

Head of product security at a global fintech

Derek Fisher – Head of product security at a global fintech. Speaker, instructor, and author in application security.

Derek is an award winning author of a children’s book series in cybersecurity as well as the author of “The Application Security Handbook.” He is a university instructor at Temple University where he teaches software development security to undergraduate and graduate students. He is a speaker on topics in the cybersecurity space and has led teams, large and small, at organizations in the healthcare and financial industries. He has built and matured information security teams as well as implemented organizational information security strategies to reduce the organizations risk.

Derek got his start in the hardware engineering space where he learned about designing circuits and building assemblies for commercial and military applications. He later pursued a computer science degree in order to advance a career in software development. This is where Derek was introduced to cybersecurity and soon caught the bug. He found a mentor to help him grow in cybersecurity and then pursued a graduate degree in the subject.

Since then Derek has worked in the product security space as an architect and leader. He has led teams to deliver more secure software in organizations from multiple industries. His focus has been to raise the security awareness of the engineering organization while maintaining a practice of secure code development, delivery, and operations.

In his role, Jeevan handles a range of tasks, from architecting security solutions to collaborating with Engineering Leadership to address security vulnerabilities at scale and embed security into the fabric of the organization.

Jeevan Singh

Jeevan Singh

Founder of Manicode Security

Jeevan Singh is the Director of Security Engineering at Rippling, with a background spanning various Engineering and Security leadership roles over the course of his career. He’s dedicated to the integration of security practices into software development, working to create a security-aware culture within organizations and imparting security best practices to the team.
In his role, Jeevan handles a range of tasks, from architecting security solutions to collaborating with Engineering Leadership to address security vulnerabilities at scale and embed security into the fabric of the organization.

James

James Berthoty

Founder of Latio Tech

James Berthoty has over ten years of experience across product and security domains. He founded Latio Tech to help companies find the right security tools for their needs without vendor bias.

christophe

Christophe Parisel

Senior Cloud Security Architect

Senior Cloud Security Architect

Chris

Chris Romeo

Co-Founder
Security Journey

Chris Romeo is a leading voice and thinker in application security, threat modeling, and security champions and the CEO of Devici and General Partner at Kerr Ventures. Chris hosts the award-winning “Application Security Podcast,” “The Security Table,” and “The Threat Modeling Podcast” and is a highly rated industry speaker and trainer, featured at the RSA Conference, the AppSec Village @ DefCon, OWASP Global AppSec, ISC2 Security Congress, InfoSec World and All Day DevOps. Chris founded Security Journey, a security education company, leading to an exit in 2022. Chris was the Chief Security Advocate at Cisco, spreading security knowledge through education and champion programs. Chris has twenty-six years of security experience, holding positions across the gamut, including application security, security engineering, incident response, and various Executive roles. Chris holds the CISSP and CSSLP certifications.

jim

Jim Manico

Founder of Manicode Security

Jim Manico is the founder of Manicode Security, where he trains software developers on secure coding and security engineering. Jim is also the founder of Brakeman Security, Inc. and an investor/advisor for Signal Sciences. He is the author of Iron-Clad Java: Building Secure Web Applications (McGraw-Hill), a frequent speaker on secure software practices, and a member of the JavaOne Rockstar speaker community. Jim is also a volunteer for and former board member of the OWASP foundation.

Join our Mailing list!

Get all the latest news, exclusive deals, and feature updates.

The IKIGAI concept
x  Powerful Protection for WordPress, from Shield Security
This Site Is Protected By
ShieldPRO