.png){kind=spacer}
The MITRE ATT&CK Evaluations have entered unexpected choppy waters. Several of the cybersecurity industry’s largest platform vendors have opted out this year, each using the same language about “resource prioritization” and “customer focus”. When multiple leaders step back at once, it raises some hard questions. Is this really about resourcing, or about avoiding scrutiny? Or is it the slow unraveling of a bellwether and much-loved institution?
Speculation is rife; some suggest these giants are wary of being outshone by newer challengers; other believe it reflects uncertainty inside MITRE itself. Whatever the case, the exits have forced a reckoning: does ATT&CK still matter? At Databahn, we believe it does – but only if it evolves into something greater than it is today.
What is MITRE ATT&CK and why it matters
MITRE ATT&CK was born from a simple idea: if we could catalog the real tactics and techniques adversaries use in the wild, defenders everywhere could share a common language and learn from each other. Over time, ATT&CK became more than a knowledge base – it became the Rosetta Stone of modern cybersecurity.
The Evaluations program extended that vision. Instead of relying on vendor claims or glossy datasheets, enterprises could see how different tools performed against emulated threat actors, step by step. MITRE never crowned winners or losers; it simply published raw results, offering a level playing field for interpretation.
That transparency mattered. In an industry awash with noise and marketing spin, ATT&CK Evaluations became one of the few neutral signals that CISOs, SOC leaders, and practitioners could trust. For many, it was less about perfect scores and more about seeing how a tool behaved under pressure – and whether it aligned with their own threat model.
The Misuse and the Criticisms
For years, ATT&CK Evaluations were one of the few bright spots in an industry crowded with vendor claims. CISOs could point to them as neutral, transparent – and at least in theory – immune from spin. In a market that rarely offers apples-to-apples comparisons, ATT&CK stood out as a genuine attempt at objectivity. In defiance of the tragedy of the commons, it remained neutral, with all revenues routed towards doing more research to improve public safety.
The absences of some of the industry’s largest vendors have sparked a firestorm of commentary. While their detractors are skeptical about their near-identical statements and suggest that this was strategic, it raises questions at a time when criticisms of MITRE ATT&CK Evaluations were also growing more strident, pointing to how results were interpreted – or rather, misinterpreted. While MITRE doesn’t crown champions, hand out trophies, or assign grades, vendors have been quick to award themselves with imagined laurels. Raw detection logs are taken and twisted into “best-in-class" coverage, missing the nuance that matters most: whether detections were actionable, whether alerts drowned analysts in noise, and whether the configuration mirrored a real production environment.
The gap became even more stark when evaluation results didn’t line up with enterprise reality. CISOs would see a tool perform flawlessly on paper, only to watch it miss basic detections or drown SOCs with false positives. The disconnect wasn’t the fault of the ATT&CK framework itself, which didn’t intend to simulate the full messiness of a live environment. But this gave critics the ammunition to question whether the program had lost its value.
And of course, there is the Damocles’ sword of AI. In a time of dynamic threats being spun up and vulnerabilities exploited in days, do one-time evaluations of solutions really have the same effectiveness? In short, what was designed to be a transparent reference point too often CISOs and SOC teams were left to sift through competing storylines–especially in an ecosystem where AI-powered speed rendered static frameworks less effective.
Making the gold standard shine again
For all its flaws and frustrations, ATT&CK remains the closest thing cybersecurity has to a gold standard. No other program managed to establish such a widely accepted, openly accessible benchmark for adversary behavior. For CISOs and SOC leaders, it has become the shared map that allows them to compare tools, align on tactics, and measure their own defenses against a common framework.
Critics are right to point out the imperfections in MITRE Evaluations. But in a non-deterministic security landscape – where two identical attacks can play out in wildly different ways – imperfection is inevitable. What makes ATT&CK different is that it provides something few others do: neutrality. Unlike vendor-run bakeoffs, pay-to-play analyst reports, or carefully curated customer case studies, ATT&CK offers a transparent record of what happened, when, and how. No trophies, no hidden methodology, no commercial bias. Just data.
That’s why, even as some major players step away, ATT&CK still matters. It is not a scoreboard and never should have been treated as one. It is a mirror that shows us where we stand, warts and all. And when that mirror is held up regularly, it keeps vendors honest, challengers motivated, and buyers better informed. And most importantly, it keeps us all safer and better prepared for the threats we face today.
Yet, holding up a mirror once a year is no longer enough. The pace of attacks has accelerated, AI is transforming both offense and defense, and enterprises can’t afford to wait for annual snapshots. If ATT&CK is to remain the industry’s north star, it must evolve into something more dynamic – capable of keeping pace with today’s threats and tomorrow’s innovations.
From annual tests to constant vigilance
If ATT&CK is to remain the north star of cybersecurity, it cannot stay frozen in its current form. Annual, one-off evaluations feel outdated in today’s fast-paced threat landscape. The need is to test enterprise deployments, not security tools in sterilized conditions.
In one large-scale study, researchers mapped enterprise deployments against the same MITRE ATT&CK techniques used in evaluations. The results were stark: despite high vendor scores in controlled settings, only 2% of adversary behaviors were consistently detected in product. That kind of drop-off exposes a fundamental gap – not in MITRE’s framework itself, but in how it is being used.
The future of ATT&CK must be continuous. Enterprises should be leveraging the framework to test their systems, because that is what is being attacked and under threat. These tests should be a consistent process of stress-testing, learning, and improving. Organizations should be able to validate their security posture against MITRE techniques regularly – with results that reflect live data, not just laboratory conditions.
This vision is no longer theoretical. Advances in data pipeline management and automation now make it possible to run constant, low friction checks on how telemetry maps to ATT&CK. At Databahn, we’ve designed our platform to enable exactly this: continuous visibility into coverage, blind spots, and gaps in real-world environments. By aligning security data flows directly with ATT&CK, we help enterprises move from static validation to dynamic, always-on confidence.
Vendors shouldn’t abandon MITRE ATT&CK Evaluations; they should make it a module in their products, to enable enterprises to consistently evaluate their security posture. This will ensure that enterprises can keep better pace with an era of relentless attack and rapid innovation. The value of ATT&CK was never in a single set of results – but in the discipline of testing, interpreting, and improving, again and again.
.png)
.avif)
.avif)
