Cybersecurity Has Enough Scores. What It Needs Is a Business Case.
We’re drowning in numbers. What exactly does a ‘score’ give you? Just a static, meaningless view. You’ve got CVSS scores, heatmaps, GRC dashboards... but those don’t tell you what to fix first or how much it matters to the business.
Because none of those tools actually answer that question. This isn’t about having more data. It’s about knowing what to do with it.
Why This Keeps Happening
Cybersecurity teams spend a lot of time trying to translate technical noise into business priorities. CVSS tells you how bad a vulnerability is, not how much it could cost you. Heatmaps are often more art than science. GRCs keep things tidy for auditors, but rarely help you act faster.
So when your boss or the board asks, “Where’s our biggest risk?” or “Why are we spending so much on that cyber tool?”... there’s no quick answer.
Not because you’re missing the baseline information, but because none of it ties clearly to impact.
What Cyber Teams Are Really After
Teams aren’t looking for another framework. They’re looking for clarity. What’s our risk exposure in dollars? What’s the return on fixing it? What should we do first? And the answers need to be rooted in contextual data. Derive uses real-world loss benchmarks, live operational signals, and in-platform risk modeling to provide that context. It’s available and working in the platform today.
That’s why so many teams start exploring cyber risk quantification (CRQ), the FAIR model, or tools that promise financial visibility. Not because they want to become actuaries but because they need:
A simple way to quantify risk in business terms
A way to justify security investments
A faster path to decision-making
More than that, they need risk platforms that go beyond static reports. Derive does this TODAY by tying peer breach data, internal control status, and daily security tasks together in one place. Teams can see how completed or missed activities immediately affect their financial risk exposure, benchmark performance against peers, and adjust priorities in real time.
From Theory to Action
Let’s say phishing exposes your org to $2.1M in risk over the next five years. You roll out MFA across the company. Two weeks later, the risk drops to $320K over the same time period. That’s not a theory, it’s an action tied to measurable, defensible impact. And it’s what turns a tactical task list into a strategic conversation.
Prioritization Over Documentation
The security forecast with Derive: showing where you’ve been and (statistically) where you’re headed
Most risk tools were designed for documentation. Derive is a platform built for decision-making.
Instead of annual assessments that go stale, it gives you:
Real-time visibility into your top risks
A prioritized roadmap tied to business outcomes
Instant ROI calculations for any control change
It’s like going from a static report to a live dashboard. Less explaining. More deciding.
Our Point of View
Over the years, we’ve worked alongside teams struggling to make cybersecurity decisions in the dark - buried under dashboards, unsure of what matters most. (And in fact we’ve lived it ourselves as we built and secured Derive). We believe it’s time to shift from reactive security to an impact-driven strategy. Derive was designed to bring clarity to cyber risk, turning data into decisions and guesswork into financial confidence.
So What?
If you’re drowning in data but still can’t answer “what do we fix first?” or “what should we focus on this week?” or “am I doing enough?” - you’re not alone. And you’re not wrong.
Cybersecurity has enough scores. It needs a business case.
Final Thought
You don’t need another report. You need a reason. You need to walk into the next meeting and say:
“This is the risk.”
“This is what we’re doing about it.”
“Here’s how much it’s working.”
And when you can do that consistently, you’ve moved from security operations to security leadership.
Want to see what that looks like?
See a demo video of Derive in action
