Computing System Compliance Mapping for Faster Vulnerability Remediation
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current methods for detecting and mitigating vulnerabilities in OT/ICS and IT systems are slow, resource-intensive, and lack standardized automation, leading to delays in patching and increased cyber threat exposure, especially for legacy devices, with no effective way to enforce manufacturer accountability and ensure compliance with NIST controls.
Innovation Solution
A system utilizing AI/ML and neural networks to automatically analyze vulnerabilities and compliance frameworks, generating comprehensive mappings and mitigation strategies across multiple systems, enabling continuous monitoring and reporting through an API integration.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Productivity
If automated vulnerability detection systems are deployed, then detection speed and coverage are improved, but false positive findings increase and validation becomes more difficult
Solution Approach 1:
The system implements feedback loops where vulnerability findings are validated through multiple sources including manufacturer data, industry consensus, and historical patterns. This feedback mechanism allows the system to learn from false positives and improve accuracy over time while maintaining high detection speed.
Solution Approach 2:
The system introduces an intermediary validation layer that acts as a mediator between automated detection and final vulnerability confirmation. This intermediary layer cross-references findings with multiple data sources before presenting confirmed vulnerabilities, reducing false positives while maintaining detection speed.
2Manufacturing precision
If manufacturers are given more time to develop and release patches, then patch quality and testing are improved, but vulnerability exposure time increases and security risk grows
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary actions by proactively identifying and tracking vulnerabilities before they are exploited, and by pre-coordinating with manufacturers about upcoming patch schedules. This allows organizations to prepare mitigation strategies in advance, reducing the effective exposure time even when patch development takes time.
Solution Approach 2:
The system applies partial patching or mitigation strategies that address the most critical aspects of a vulnerability immediately, rather than waiting for complete patches. This allows organizations to reduce risk partially while manufacturers continue developing comprehensive fixes, balancing patch quality with reduced exposure time.
3Reliability
If legacy devices are patched or modified to fix vulnerabilities, then security compliance is improved, but device functionality may be changed or warranty may be voided
Solution Approach 1:
The system segments the patching approach by separating critical security fixes from optional functionality changes. It identifies and applies only the minimal necessary changes to achieve compliance, preserving device functionality. The system also segments the patching process into testing and deployment phases to minimize operational disruption.
Solution Approach 2:
The system applies local quality by tailoring patching strategies to specific device contexts, manufacturers, and vulnerability types. Rather than uniform patching, it selects from multiple approaches (vendor patches, community patches, configuration changes, physical mitigations) based on what best preserves device functionality while achieving compliance for each specific case.
4Reliability
If comprehensive vulnerability assessments are performed across all systems, then security coverage is improved, but resource consumption and complexity increase
Solution Approach 1:
The system implements universal assessment methodologies that can be applied across diverse device types, manufacturers, and vulnerability classes through standardized processes. This multi-functionality allows comprehensive security coverage without increasing complexity, as the same framework handles different assessment scenarios.
Solution Approach 2:
The system dynamically adjusts assessment parameters such as depth, scope, and intensity based on device criticality, vulnerability type, and organizational context. This allows comprehensive coverage where needed while reducing complexity for lower-risk systems, optimizing the balance between security coverage and resource consumption.
Data Source
AI summary
Method and system for analyzing computing devices for properties of at least one computer software in the at least one computing system, includes loading, input data for at least one computer software; determining a result pertaining to vulnerabilities present or expected to be present within the computer software; mapping vulnerabilities to frameworks, determining a result pertaining to the outcome of the vulnerability-to-framework mapping; generating, an output data describing the at least one result; storing the output data pertaining to the result in a memory; and determining, if the result satisfies a predetermined condition, and if so, executing an action corresponding to the result on the computing system.