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)
- Check our analysis of the Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses” for 2023 article from last year
- Check our analysis of CISA KEV and patterns of attacks in CISA KEV
- Check out the full analysis of CWE top 25 for 2024
- Check out our data explorers
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?
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
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)
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.
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.)
Ransomware Rank Overall Rank CWE Name (Short) Used in Ransom Category / Notable Mapping
Year | CWE T25 Rank | Ransomware | CWE | Vulnerability Description | Category | Software Cat | Overall Category | USED IN RANSOM |
2024 | 5 | 1 | CWE-22 | Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (‘Path Traversal’) | #N/A | #N/A | Broken Access Control | 29 |
2024 | 12 | 2 | CWE-20 | Improper Input Validation | #N/A | #N/A | #N/A | 24 |
2024 | 16 | 3 | CWE-502 | Deserialization of Untrusted Data | Resource Control | Resource Control | Resource Control | 24 |
2024 | 3 | 4 | CWE-89 | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command (‘SQL Injection’) | #N/A | #N/A | Injection | 21 |
2024 | 15 | 5 | CWE-269 | Improper Privilege Management | Access Control | Access Control | Access Control | 19 |
2024 | 7 | 6 | CWE-78 | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (‘OS Command Injection’) | #N/A | #N/A | Injection | 18 |
2024 | 14 | 7 | CWE-287 | Improper Authentication | Access Control | Access Control | Access Control | 17 |
2024 | 2 | 8 | CWE-787 | Out-of-bounds Write | Memory Safety | Memory Safety | Memory Safety | 14 |
2024 | 18 | 9 | CWE-863 | Incorrect Authorization | Access Control | Access Control | Access Control | 12 |
2024 | 11 | 10 | CWE-94 | Improper Control of Generation of Code (‘Code Injection’) | #N/A | #N/A | #N/A | 11 |
NVD Data Comparison
Quick Data Insight: (Memory and injection flaws dominate NVD volumes, with some big jumps for classic buffer issues.)
NVD Rank Overall Rank CWE Name (Short) NVD Total Category / Notable Mapping
NVD Rank | NVD TOTAL | CWE T25 Rank | CWE | Vulnerability Description | Category | Software Cat | Ovearall Category | NVD New | NVD Total |
1 | 2 | 1 | CWE-79 | Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (‘Cross-site Scripting’) | #N/A | #N/A | Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) | 4830 | 30437 |
2 | 1 | 20 | CWE-119 | Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer | Memory Safety | Memory Safety | Memory Safety | 3198 | 37039 |
3 | 3 | 3 | CWE-89 | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command (‘SQL Injection’) | #N/A | #N/A | Injection | 2064 | 12912 |
4 | 6 | 14 | CWE-287 | Improper Authentication | Access Control | Access Control | Access Control | 947 | 9249 |
5 | 10 | 4 | CWE-352 | Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) | Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity | Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity | Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity | 880 | 6215 |
6 | 14 | 9 | CWE-862 | Missing Authorization | Access Control | Access Control | Access Control | 880 | 3068 |
7 | 11 | 13 | CWE-77 | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (‘Command Injection’) | #N/A | #N/A | Injection | 836 | 5808 |
8 | 8 | 5 | CWE-22 | Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (‘Path Traversal’) | #N/A | #N/A | Broken Access Control | 824 | 6650 |
9 | 4 | 2 | CWE-787 | Out-of-bounds Write | Memory Safety | Memory Safety | Memory Safety | 787 | 10126 |
10 | 7 | 17 | CWE-200 | Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor | Sensitive Information Exposure | Sensitive Information Exposure | Sensitive Information Exposure | 738 | 8981 |
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
The two datasets take into account the op exploited vulnerability types
Comparison with Vulncheck and Cisa
CISA KEV Rank | Overall Rank | CWE | Name (Short) | CISA KEV | Category / Notable Mapping\ |
1 | 2 | CWE-787 | Out-of-bounds Write | 18 | Memory corruption\ |
2 | 11 | CWE-94 | Improper Control of Generation of Code (Code Injection) | 7 | Injection\ |
3 | 7 | CWE-78 | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command | 5 | OS Command Injection (OWASP A03:2021 Injection)\ |
4 | 8 | CWE-416 | Use After Free | 5 | Memory corruption\ |
5 | 16 | CWE-502 | Deserialization of Untrusted Data | 5 | Insecure Deserialization\ |
6 | 25 | CWE-306 | Missing Authentication for Critical Function | 5 | Auth bypass\ |
7 | 3 | CWE-89 | SQL Injection | 4 | Injection (OWASP A03:2021)\ |
8 | 5 | CWE-22 | Path Traversal | 4 | Broken Access Control / Path Restriction\ |
9 | 13 | CWE-77 | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command | 4 | Command Injection (OWASP A03:2021)\ |
10 | 14 | CWE-287 | Improper Authentication | 4 | Broken Authentication (OWASP)\ |
Comparison between Vulncheck KEV/CISA
CISA Rank | CWE Rank | Vulncheck Rank | CWE | Name | Kev/Year | Total Kev | VulnCheck/Year | VulnCheck Reference/Year | Total VulnCheck |
4 | 7 | 1 | #78 | 78 – Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (‘OS Command Injection’) | 11 | 61 | 90 | 2914 | 318 |
6 | 5 | 2 | #22 | Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (‘Path Traversal’) | 10 | 48 | 71 | 1381 | 259 |
15 | 10 | 3 | #434 | Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type | 1 | 16 | 33 | 1059 | 98 |
16 | 17 | 4 | #200 | Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor | 1 | 21 | 19 | 479 | 63 |
13 | 19 | 5 | #918 | Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) | 1 | 8 | 26 | 372 | 55 |
19 | 11 | 6 | #94 | Improper Control of Generation of Code (‘Code Injection’) | 0 | 39 | 7 | 304 | 50 |
7 | 2 | 7 | CWE-787 | Out-of-bounds Write | 9 | 77 | 26 | 243 | 259 |
5 | 16 | 8 | #502 | Deserialization of Untrusted Data | 10 | 35 | 34 | 160 | 113 |
2 | 14 | 9 | #287 | Improper Authentication | 16 | 24 | 71 | 92 | 228 |
3 | 13 | 10 | #77 | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (‘Command Injection’) | 12 | 22 | 113 | 68 | 339 |
Bug Bounty
Quick View: (XSS (#79) dwarfs everything else in bug bounty volumes. SQLi (#89) is also extremely common.)
This data collects the top reports across years for Bug bounty:
CWE T25 Rank | BB Rank | CWE | Vulnerability Description | Category | Software Cat | Overall Category | Rank | BB Popularity |
1 | 1 | #79 | Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (‘Cross-site Scripting’) | #N/A | #N/A | Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) | TOP25-24-1 | 103,215 |
17 | 2 | #200 | Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor | Sensitive Information Exposure | Sensitive Information Exposure | Sensitive Information Exposure | TOP25-24-17 | 72,531 |
14 | 3 | #287 | Improper Authentication | Access Control | Access Control | Access Control | TOP25-24-14 | 21,196 |
4 | 4 | #352 | Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) | Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity | Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity | Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity | TOP25-24-4 | 15,310 |
3 | 5 | #89 | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command (‘SQL Injection’) | #N/A | #N/A | Injection | TOP25-24-3 | 9,787 |
11 | 6 | #94 | Improper Control of Generation of Code (‘Code Injection’) | #N/A | #N/A | #N/A | TOP25-24-11 | 8,132 |
19 | 7 | #918 | Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) | Access Control | Access Control | Access Control | TOP25-24-19 | 7,852 |
24 | 8 | #400 | Uncontrolled Resource Consumption | Resource Lifecycle Management | Resource Lifecycle Management | Resource Lifecycle Management | TOP25-24-24 | 6,191 |
5 | 9 | CWE-22 | Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (‘Path Traversal’) | #N/A | #N/A | Broken Access Control | TOP25-24-5 | 4,876 |
13 | 10 | CWE-77 | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (‘Command Injection’) | #N/A | #N/A | Injection | TOP25-24-13 | 4,625 |
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.
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.