From noise to action – how context transforms vulnerability management

What are the pitfalls of treating every vulnerability as “urgent”?

I see many organizations fall into the “patch everything now” trap, treating any delay as a ticking time bomb. Ironically, this constant sense of urgency can make for a less efficient patch management^[1] process.

Chasing every CVE as though it were a zero-day can quickly lead to alert fatigue, with teams feeling numb and burned out. If everything is critical, nothing is, and then genuinely severe flaws get lost in the noise.

Context is our antidote. Teams need to know why they are prioritizing a vulnerability, rather than just tackling every incoming issue or blindly following risk scores.

A risk-based patching strategy starts by defining “critical” through your own operational lens, not just generic scores. In traditional models, teams often chase high CVSS numbers or the latest zero-day headlines – and then wonder why budgets explode and nothing ever feels “done.”

There are three key questions to help work this out: what asset is affected, how exposed is it, and what real-world exploit data exists?

For instance, a vulnerability in a customer-facing payments server ranks far higher than one on an isolated development box. By overlaying CVSS scores with threat intelligence, such as proof-of-concept exploits or active weaponization, and tagging assets by business function, we bring true urgency back into focus.

This hybrid scoring model shrinks your urgent backlog to a manageable level so teams can execute confidently. However, this is only possible if work is put in to establish full situational awareness in advance.

How can organizations achieve the prioritization needed for effective vulnerability management?

In my experience, it starts with knowing exactly what you have. A lot of companies really struggle with this because they have so many different tools and processes that don’t connect together.

So, it’s essential to consolidate all scanner outputs, IT systems, cloud services^[2], code, and external surfaces into a single inventory. Without that unified view, prioritization is guesswork.

Next, layer in threat intelligence feeds. Look for indicators of active exploitation: proof-of-concept code, wormable vulnerabilities or entries in CISA’s Known Exploitability Vulnerabilities catalogue. Suddenly, a static list of CVEs becomes a dynamic map of real-world risk.

This contextual data can be used to inform a central dashboard, allowing teams to filter by asset criticality, exposure and business function easily. This makes it simple for vulnerability management teams to identify priorities through the noise. For example, you might tag production databases^[3] as “Tier 1” and filter out low-risk test environments entirely.

Finally, make enrichment a team sport. Security analysts, ops engineers and application owners should all validate and update context based on their fields. “Yes, that server really runs our ecommerce platform^[4]”, or “No, that VM is scheduled for decommissioning,” and so on. However, this collaboration is often challenging due to heavily siloed teams and practices.

So how companies bridge the silo between security and operations teams during patch management?

Siloed departments can be a real problem. Without clear communication, VM teams can end up being seen as an irritation getting in the way of operations, or else find themselves jumping through hoops to make things work.

Bridging the security–operations divide isn’t a technology problem; it’s a people and process challenge. I’ve found that starting small creates momentum. Identify a non-critical system and volunteer your security team to assist ops in scheduling and rolling out that patch. That quick win demonstrates goodwill and shows you’re a partner, not a roadblock.

Language is also crucial to building rapport. Instead of “You must patch immediately,” try “We’ve identified a risk that could disrupt payroll^[5] next week, how can I help schedule a maintenance window?” Framing requests around business services positions security as an enabler.

Finally, codify the collaboration^[6]. Establish a shared runbook that outlines roles, SLAs and escalation paths. Automate ticket handoffs between tools so no request falls through the cracks. When both teams have clear expectations and communication channels, patches move faster and friction melts away.

Fostering a more collaborative culture between departments also makes it easier to achieve C-suite buy-in. The added context can be used to inform concise, impact-focused briefs, translating technical risk into results like potential downtime, customer fallout^[7] or regulatory fines. This method not only improves security outcomes but boosts confidence in IT leadership’s decision-making.

Improve your cybersecurity training with the best online cybersecurity courses^[8].

This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro’s Expert Insights channel where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro^[9]