For years, security leaders have reported metrics like the number of scans performed, the volume of vulnerabilities discovered, and how quickly issues were detected. These were easy to track and easy to present. They gave a sense of activity, of work being done—but activity isn’t the same as impact. In fact, focusing on surface-level metrics can mask the real problems in your security posture.
As we face more targeted, more frequent, and more sophisticated application-layer attacks, our thinking needs to evolve. Security is no longer about simply identifying vulnerabilities. It’s about understanding which of those issues truly matter because they’re reachable, exploitable, and business-critical—and ensuring they’re addressed before an attacker finds them.
What’s become increasingly clear to me is this: if our KPIs aren’t risk-aligned, they aren’t helping. Security leaders must be able to demonstrate progress in reducing actual, exploitable risk, not just ticking boxes or clearing scan queues.
The problem with traditional AppSec metrics
Traditional KPIs in AppSec reflect an era where we believed more scanning equaled more security. This approach was born from necessity: we didn’t have much visibility into our applications, so we relied heavily on detection volume as a proxy for diligence. That made sense at the time. But now, in a DevSecOps world where testing happens continuously and software is deployed weekly, daily, or even hourly, volume is no longer a meaningful indicator.
Too often, organizations are still counting the number of static or dynamic scans run or showcasing dashboards filled with “200 highs, 450 mediums, 1,000 lows.” This mostly tells you how much noise you’ve uncovered, not how much risk you’ve reduced.
Without the ability to validate what’s real and what’s relevant, scan and vulnerability counts become more of a liability than an asset. They overwhelm your engineering teams, dilute urgency, and make it harder to focus on what truly matters.
More worryingly, I’ve seen organizations tout improving KPIs while their underlying risk posture deteriorated and critical vulnerabilities remained in production for weeks or months, hidden behind the illusion of compliance.
The shift toward outcome-oriented KPIs
What’s needed now is a shift in thinking: a move from detection-focused metrics to outcome-focused ones. This means tracking the things that actually reflect a reduction in exploitability. Are we remediating high-impact vulnerabilities faster? Are we fixing the issues that attackers are most likely to target? Are we validating that the fixes work in the real world?
Modern AppSec KPIs need to be built on a foundation of risk reduction, not just discovery. They must be able to tell you where you’ve made meaningful security progress and where your most dangerous gaps still lie.
For example, tracking the number of exploitable vulnerabilities resolved within a certain timeframe is a far more relevant indicator than the number of scan alerts closed. Similarly, understanding how quickly critical flaws in your highest-risk applications are resolved tells you more about your risk posture than overall ticket volumes.
Where DAST fits in, quietly and powerfully
One of the most underutilized capabilities in modern AppSec is the power of dynamic application security testing (DAST) to serve as a source of validation. While shift-left security remains important and static testing continues to provide value early in the lifecycle, it’s at runtime that the rubber meets the road. Attackers aren’t reading your source code. They’re interacting with your live, deployed applications, looking for behavior they can exploit.
That’s where DAST earns its keep. When integrated properly, DAST doesn’t just tell you a vulnerability might exist—it shows you how it behaves, how it can be exploited, and what the real-world impact could be. It gives your teams the context they need to make smarter decisions. It enables security programs to stop chasing ghosts and start solving real problems.
DAST findings are inherently tied to execution. If a flaw doesn’t manifest in the running application, it likely won’t show up in dynamic testing. That’s valuable because it filters out theoretical issues that may not actually pose a threat in practice. And for the vulnerabilities that are exposed during dynamic scans, the evidence is concrete, often complete with attack payloads, affected endpoints, and proof-of-concept exploitability. That kind of intelligence changes the conversation with developers. It replaces skepticism with action.
On top of finding issues, DAST helps organizations measure the effectiveness of their remediation efforts. It can be used to re-test known vulnerabilities and confirm that a fix actually resolves the issue. This is one of the most underrated contributions DAST can make to modern AppSec metrics: ensuring that you’re not just patching but truly mitigating.
From activity to impact
The challenge in all of this isn’t just technical—it’s cultural. Many teams still equate busy dashboards with security maturity. But when you ask executives, regulators, or customers what they want to see, it isn’t how many scans you ran last quarter. It’s whether the business is more secure. Whether the application your customers rely on is resilient to attack. Whether a flaw discovered in production would result in a compromise or be neutralized before damage could occur.
If the KPIs you’re tracking don’t help answer those questions about your realistic risk, you need to ask yourself why you’re tracking them at all.
Security leaders need to tell a different story, one that connects technical data to business outcomes. We need to highlight how many impactful vulnerabilities were validated, remediated, and closed in business-critical systems. We need to demonstrate improvements in the mean time to risk mitigation, not just time to triage. We need to show how the integration of runtime insights from tools like DAST helps reduce friction, cut noise, and increase precision in the way we secure our applications.
Final thoughts
The maturity of your AppSec program isn’t defined by the number of tools you have, the length of your reports, or the volume of findings in your backlog. It’s defined by your ability to find the right problems, fix them quickly, and continuously improve your resilience against real-world threats.
As CISOs and security leaders, we owe it to our teams and our stakeholders to focus on metrics that matter. That means resisting the wow factor of scan counts and pivoting to KPIs that reflect meaningful, measurable risk reduction.
Security isn’t about being the loudest. It’s about being the most effective.
The post Modern AppSec KPIs: Moving from scan counts to real risk reduction appeared first on Invicti.
0 Comments