VOL. MMXIII..No. 211

Indexof Ethical Hacking -

| Component | Max Score | Calculation | |-----------|-----------|--------------| | External IPs | 30 | (tested IPs / total IPs) × 30 | | Internal IPs | 25 | (tested subnets / total subnets) × 25 | | Web apps | 25 | (tested apps / total critical apps) × 25 | | APIs | 10 | (tested endpoints / total documented endpoints) × 10 | | Mobile apps | 5 | (tested builds / total production builds) × 5 | | IoT/OT | 5 | (tested device types / total types) × 5 |

| Level | Description | Score | Example Techniques | |-------|-------------|-------|--------------------| | 1 | Automated scanner only | 20 | Nessus, OpenVAS | | 2 | Manual authenticated scanning | 40 | Burp Pro with manual verification | | 3 | Hybrid (automated + manual) with business logic | 60 | OWASP top 10 + custom exploits | | 4 | Adversary simulation (TTP-based) | 80 | MITRE ATT&CK mapping, C2 frameworks | | 5 | Full red team + purple team + zero-day research | 100 | Custom implants, physical, social engineering |

The proposed Index of Ethical Hacking (IoEH) transforms subjective opinions (“We do penetration tests”) into a data-driven score from 0 to 100, where 100 represents continuous, adversarial, full-scope testing with zero remediation lag. The IoEH is defined as: indexof ethical hacking

| Frequency | Score Multiplier | Typical Use Case | |-----------|----------------|-------------------| | Continuous (daily) | 100 | Bug bounty + DAST in CI/CD | | Monthly | 80 | Critical APIs / public apps | | Quarterly | 60 | Internal infrastructure | | Bi-annually | 40 | Non-critical internal systems | | Annually | 20 | Low-risk assets | | Less than annually | 0 | None |

If an org tests 80% of external IPs, 50% of internal subnets, 100% of web apps, 0% APIs, 100% mobile, 0% OT → C = (24 + 12.5 + 25 + 0 + 5 + 0) = 66.5 2.2 Frequency (F) – Weight 20% How often each asset type is tested. Continuous testing earns highest scores. | Component | Max Score | Calculation |

D = Average depth score across all tested asset categories A unique addition: ethical hacking is useless without fixing findings.

For a typical enterprise with 3 critical web apps (monthly → 80), 200 internal hosts (quarterly → 60), 50 non-critical (annually → 20). Weighted average ≈ 67 . 2.3 Depth (D) – Weight 25% The sophistication level of testing. Inspired by PTES (Penetration Testing Execution Standard). D = Average depth score across all tested

| Metric | Weight | Formula | |--------|--------|---------| | Critical findings closed within SLA (e.g., 7 days) | 50 | (closed on time / total critical) × 50 | | High findings closed within SLA (e.g., 30 days) | 30 | (closed on time / total high) × 30 | | Reopened findings rate | -20 | subtract (reopened / total closed) × 20 |

Top