Introduction

In an environment where the shortage of skilled cyber security professionals continues to be an issue, it’s logical to think organisations would be carefully vetting security vendors not just on functionality, but also on their ability to reduce operational risk. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Despite the critical role cyber security plays in protecting organisations and their customers, many businesses continue to overlook one of the most vital evaluation metrics when choosing a cyber security solution: the vendor’s ability to prevent and remediate cyber attacks.

Blind Spots In Vendor Evaluation

It’s common practice for consumers to consult dozens of reviews before purchasing a new appliance. Similarly, insurers review a driver’s record before offering a policy.

Yet, paradoxically, many businesses fail to examine a cyber security vendor’s vulnerability history with the same level of scrutiny. This blind spot can lead to significant hidden costs, not just in terms of money, but also in terms of reputational damage and risk exposure.

Track Records Matter

Cyber security vendors are not immune to vulnerabilities. However, the way they manage these issues, how frequently they experience them, how quickly they release patches, and the quality of those patches can speak volumes about their internal security discipline.

When a vendor is slow to patch vulnerabilities or does so frequently and ineffectively, the consequences can ripple through an organisation. The vendor’s track record should not be an afterthought.

Tools and platforms such as CISA, Security Scorecard, and other vulnerability databases offer visibility into how often a vendor’s products are exposed and how rapidly they respond. Using this information to assess a vendor should be as routine as reviewing specifications or pricing.

The Hidden Costs

The costs associated with security vulnerabilities have an impact on organisations in a number of different ways. These include:

• Operational overheads:
  Every Common Vulnerability and Exposure (CVE) logged against a security product represents a cost to the business. When patches are released, organisations must go through internal change management procedures to deploy them. For larger businesses operating hundreds of affected appliances, patching a single CVE can cost thousands of dollars.
• Change risks:
  With every patch comes a degree of operational risk. Vendors often rush out fixes to meet customer demands, which can lead to poorly tested patches. These rushed changes may introduce instability or unintended consequences to the environment. Also, the longer a vendor takes to issue a patch, the greater the window of opportunity for threat actors to exploit the weakness. For example, if a vendor takes more than a week to release a patch, that vulnerability for an attacker to breach a company’s network or systems means an increased risk to the organisation
• Reputational damage:
  Downtime from patching may require system outages, even for customer-facing or transactional systems. Frequent disruptions can erode customer trust, reduce business performance, and inflict inconvenience to customers resulting eventually in lost revenue. Worse still, a delayed or missed patch can lead to a data breach or ransomware attack. Beyond the immediate financial cost, the reputational fallout can persist for years.
• Resource constraints:
  Not every organisation has the staff or capacity to manage a high frequency of patches. Teams are often stretched thin, and a vendor with a pattern of repeated CVEs can push IT resources to the breaking point. This leads to unpatched vulnerabilities lingering in the system, thereby exposing the organisation to compliance breaches, regulatory penalties, and higher cyber risk.

Interpreting CVEs In Context

It’s important to note that the number of vulnerabilities reported against a vendor should not be evaluated in isolation, as a high count doesn’t necessarily indicate insecurity. It may reflect transparent reporting, a broader product footprint, or a more proactive internal discovery process.

Instead, the focus should be on the severity of vulnerabilities, exploitability, and time-to-remediation. These indicators offer a more accurate view of how a vendor manages security. Patterns of delay, repeated CVEs in the same product area, or high volumes of critical vulnerabilities should raise red flags.

The good news is that SASE solutions, incorporating secure access, streamlined operations and scalable protection integrated with AI tools, can help assess network status issues quickly allowing security teams to focus on analysis and remediation rather than data collection.  Moving SASE security features closer to the user allows you to consolidate security policies and enforce consistent protections for every user, device, and application.

Recommendations for Smarter Vendor Selection

To avoid falling victim to hidden costs and risks, organisations should adopt a more thorough approach when assessing security vendors. Steps to take include:

• Consulting independent CVE sources: Use platforms like the National Vulnerability Database, CISA advisories, or Security Scorecard to assess vendors’ vulnerability histories.
• Evaluating CVSS scores and exploitability: Look beyond the number of vulnerabilities and examine their Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) ratings to understand potential impact.
• Securing your network, implement zero trust access, and monitor activity: Impressively, these security features don’t need come at the expense of network performance and enable users to manage their security posture with complete visibility of resource access and network traffic.
• Considering the frequency of patching: Excessive patching can drain resources and introduce change risk. Compare vendors on the average number of CVEs and their average time-to-patch.
• Conducting impact assessments: Quantify how vendor vulnerabilities could affect your organisation’s risk posture, customer confidence, and bottom line.
• Weighing the cost of change v cost of maintenance:

Conclusion

Don’t let the perceived difficulty of switching vendors blind you to the ongoing cost and risk of staying with one that has a poor security record.

Cyber security solutions should strengthen, not undermine, an organisation’s defences. In a time when cyber threats are escalating and skilled staff are scarce the reliability and responsiveness of chosen vendors matter more than ever.

Evaluating cyber security vendors through the lens of their vulnerability management practices – including frequency, severity, and time-to-patch – is no longer optional. It’s an essential part of any strategic approach to risk mitigation and long-term operational resilience.