CTA Webinar What Gets Measured, Gets Done A National Dashboard for Cybersecurity

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The value of the information is high, as it brings together multiple expert perspectives on a complex and under-addressed topic. The panelists provide concrete examples and reference real data sources, such as the IRIS study and the KEV list, which lend credibility to their arguments. The argumentation is solid, with each expert building on others’ points and offering nuanced views. For instance, Wade Baker’s data shows that while overall incident probability has increased, it has actually decreased for large enterprises, highlighting the importance of context. The discussion also introduces the public health analogy, which provides a useful framework for thinking about ecosystem-level metrics. However, the webinar is more of a discussion than a structured analysis, and some points are made anecdotally without deep evidence. The panelists agree on the need for better metrics but do not propose a concrete, actionable plan, which limits the practical value.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The scientific rigor is moderate. The panelists are credible experts, and they reference specific reports and data sources, such as the IRIS study and the KEV list, which are publicly available. However, the webinar does not provide formal citations or links to these sources in the description, and the discussion is largely based on personal experience and opinion. The title accurately reflects the content, focusing on the need for a national dashboard for cybersecurity. The webinar does not include any advertising or sponsorship segments. The panelists do not provide a systematic review of existing metrics, but they do offer thoughtful insights into the challenges and potential solutions. Overall, the sources are reliable but not formally cited, and the title is appropriate.

The title accurately reflects the webinar's focus on measuring cybersecurity at a national level and the need for a dashboard, as discussed by the panel.

7/10

Panel of recognized experts from reputable organizations (CTA, Columbia, Cyentia, Veracode, Verizon) discussing a complex topic with practical insights and references to real data sources. However, it is a discussion/debate format without formal citations or peer review, and some claims are anecdotal.

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

• 02:00Introduction of panelists and the topic of measuring cybersecurity.
• 08:00Discussion on why measuring cybersecurity is difficult, including the challenge of connecting vulnerabilities to breaches.
• 15:00Comparison of organizational vs. national-level metrics, with the public health analogy introduced.
• 25:00Wade Baker presents data from the IRIS study showing changes in incident probabilities over time.
• 35:00Discussion on the need for information sharing and the role of data aggregation in creating national metrics.
• 45:00Jason Healey discusses the importance of defining success and using proxy metrics, such as the KEV list.
• 55:00Conclusion and call for collaborative efforts to develop a national cybersecurity dashboard.

• Information Risk Insights Study (IRIS) 2025 — Referenced by Wade Baker as a source of data on incident probabilities.
• Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Catalog — Mentioned as a source of vulnerability data and discussed as a potential metric.

• Information Risk Insights Study (IRIS) 2025 — Provides data supporting the discussion on incident probabilities and trends.
• CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog — Discussed as a potential metric for national cybersecurity.

• No discordant sources found — The panelists largely agree on the challenges and potential approaches, with no significant disagreements.