Is CTEM Just Another Buzzword or Actually Useful?

Let’s face it – cybersecurity teams are drowning in tools, frameworks, and methodologies. So when Gartner, Inc. (‘Gartner’) started pushing Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM), many security pros rolled their eyes. “Great, another acronym to learn,” they thought.

But hang on – is CTEM actually solving real problems, or is it just repackaging stuff we already do? Let’s break this down in plain terms.

CTEM and EM: A Crucial Distinction Often Missed

There’s an important distinction that often gets overlooked in these discussions. CTEM is the framework – the guiding compass that provides strategic direction. Exposure Management (EM) represents the actual processes and technologies – the steps you take in that direction.

As Gartner analysts note in “Emerging Tech: Security — Managed Services for Exposure Management”:

“EM encompasses a set of processes and technologies that allow enterprises to continually and consistently evaluate the visibility — and validate the accessibility and vulnerability — of an enterprise’s digital assets. EM is governed by an effective CTEM program.”

Think of CTEM as the map for your journey, while EM provides the actual vehicles, roads, and fuel that get you to your destination. Both are essential, and understanding this relationship helps cut through the confusion around what this approach actually delivers.

Why Traditional Vulnerability Management Isn’t Cutting It

Traditional vulnerability management is like checking your home’s locks once a month and calling it secure. It has some serious limitations:

• It gives you snapshots instead of real-time awareness (imagine using last month’s weather report to decide if you need an umbrella today)
• It floods you with alerts but doesn’t tell you which ones actually matter
• It doesn’t help teams prioritize what to fix first, leading to critical issues gathering dust

Even with recent improvements like CVSS 4.0 and EPSS, VM still misses crucial pieces of the puzzle:

• Active Threat Intelligence: Neither CVSS nor EPSS factors in whether vulnerabilities are being actively exploited in your industry right now
• Threat Actor Behavior: Traditional VM doesn’t consider which threat actors are targeting your sector and what techniques they’re using
• TTPs: The specific Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures of attackers aren’t factored into prioritization
• Asset Intelligence: Not all assets are created equal, but VM often treats them that way
• Compensating Controls: VM doesn’t account for whether you have other security measures already mitigating a vulnerability
• Control Efficacy: Even when controls exist, VM doesn’t measure how effective they actually are in practice

What Makes This Approach Different?

This integrated approach represents a fundamental shift from traditional security practices. Instead of siloed tools and teams working independently, the CTEM framework guides a continuous cycle powered by EM processes and technologies:

1. You identify what matters most to your business

2. You prioritize fixes based on actual threat activity and business impact

3. You test whether your fixes actually worked

4. You align everyone on remediation priorities

The key difference? CTEM creates a continuous loop where you’re constantly reassessing and adapting – not just scanning and hoping for the best.

Technology and Process Supporting Each Phase

The Gartner diagram above illustrates how each phase of the CTEM framework is supported by specific technologies. Let’s look at how these technologies and their associated processes deliver real value:

1. Scoping: Asset management tools like CMDBs and CAASM help identify what matters most to your business. The process isn’t just inventorying assets – it’s understanding their business value and potential attack paths.

2. Discovery: Vulnerability assessment tools, AST, OT security, and EASM continuously scan for weaknesses. The process extends beyond just finding CVEs to understanding the full attack surface.

3. Prioritization: This is where the magic happens – using vulnerability prioritization technologies, EASM, attack path modeling, and threat intelligence to determine what actually needs fixing first.

4. Validation: BAS/CART, red team testing, penetration testing, and bug bounty programs confirm whether vulnerabilities are actually exploitable and whether fixes work.

5. Mobilization: Patch management, security posture management, and risk-based TDIR streamline the remediation workflow.

As Gartner points out:

“Clients, especially midmarket and enterprise, are making a resounding call for minimized data silos. They want EM solutions that offer a unified platform for streamlined operations and enhanced collaboration among multiple different teams.”

Any vendor that claims to do ‘CTEM’ must meet that expectation.

Does It Actually Help with the Prioritization Problem?

One of the biggest headaches in security is knowing what to fix first. When you’re staring at thousands of vulnerabilities, where do you start?

The CTEM framework and EM processes together revolutionize prioritization in ways traditional VM cannot:

• Threat Actor Intelligence: EM processes incorporate data about which threat actors are targeting your industry, their capabilities, and their methods
• TTP Correlation: By mapping vulnerabilities to specific Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures used in attacks, EM helps you focus on what attackers are actually exploiting
• Real-time Threat Data: Unlike static vulnerability scores, EM processes factor in which vulnerabilities are being weaponized right now
• Asset Criticality Context: Not all systems are equal – EM processes evaluate the business impact of each asset to prioritize accordingly
• Compensating Controls: EM evaluates whether other security measures are already mitigating a vulnerability, preventing unnecessary remediation
• Control Efficacy Testing: Beyond just knowing if controls exist, EM processes validate whether they actually work through attack simulation

This comprehensive approach means security teams can focus on the handful of issues that truly matter instead of being overwhelmed by thousands of alerts – something traditional VM with CVSS or EPSS scores alone simply can’t deliver.

Gartner reinforces this point:

“Clients recognize the need for a holistic view of their security landscape. Using this approach enables organizations to uncover patterns and vulnerabilities that could otherwise remain concealed, empowering organizations to effectively address modern threats.”

Is This Just More Work for Already Stretched Teams?

It’s a fair question! The last thing security teams need is more complexity.

But CTEM actually aims to simplify things by bringing related security activities under one framework. Instead of running vulnerability management, pen testing, and threat intelligence as separate programs, CTEM connects them into a single approach.

In practice, this means:

• Fewer, more meaningful alerts
• Automated validation to confirm fixes actually work
• Better collaboration between security, IT, and business teams

Why This Actually Matters

Look, it’s healthy to be skeptical of new security frameworks and processes. Our industry loves its buzzwords and three-four-five-and-more-letter acronyms.

But this approach addresses real problems that traditional VM simply can’t solve:

• Traditional VM can’t tell you which vulnerabilities attackers are actively exploiting in your industry
• Traditional VM doesn’t consider the specific TTPs threat actors are using against your sector
• Traditional VM doesn’t account for whether controls are actually effective, only if they exist
• Traditional VM can’t validate if your remediations actually work in practice
• Traditional VM doesn’t create a continuous feedback loop between discovery and response

Static security approaches don’t work in a world where threats and technology are constantly changing. Just like we’ve moved from castle-and-moat security to zero trust, the shift from point-in-time vulnerability management to continuous exposure management makes sense.

For security leaders wondering if this approach is worth the effort, maybe flip the question: Can you afford to keep doing security the old way when attackers are constantly evolving their techniques?

Because the most dangerous security gaps aren’t the ones you discover too late – they’re the ones you never knew existed at all. And that’s precisely what this comprehensive approach is designed to uncover.

Bottom Line

Yes, be skeptical and do your research – but don’t dismiss this modern approach just because it’s new. It’s not about buying more tools; it’s about approaching security with a continuous mindset that matches the pace of today’s threats.

For teams struggling with alert fatigue and overwhelming remediation backlogs, this framework and its supporting processes offer a more effective path forward. There’s no silver bullet, and implementing any new framework requires a subtle shift in how security teams operate. But continuing to play whack-a-mole with vulnerabilities clearly isn’t working.

The real question isn’t whether this approach is legitimate – it’s whether your organization is ready to evolve its security approach to keep up with modern threat actors.

And that decision will ultimately determine who stays secure and who becomes tomorrow’s breach headline.