How to Deal with False Positives from Rapid7 Vulnerability Scans?

Explaining technical stuff to non-tech staff can be a real headache! I'd avoid doing a proof of concept to show it's not vulnerable; they might start expecting that kind of proof regularly. Instead, focus on the idea that the concern isn't about Defender per se, but about the potential risk if someone else exploits it. Updating Defender could also be a feasible solution since you're not actively using it.

As a fellow Sophos user managing Rapid7, false positives are not unusual but manageable. Rapid7 has features for marking and justifying false positives, which can help. If you're dealing with outdated keys, it might help to gather evidence that shows Defender isn’t installed on the affected systems to clarify the situation. Just be aware that Rapid7 can flag registry entries, even after applications are removed.

It’s all about picking your battles. If you're not using Defender, consider marking these as exceptions or just updating any necessary registry keys as a temporary fix. While it's good to stand up for accuracy, sometimes it’s just not worth the effort to argue endlessly about these points.

I face a similar situation at work. Our InfoSec has one person who simply pulls reports from Rapid7 and sends them to me, asking me to address vulnerabilities that often don’t exist on the actual machines. When I challenge the validity of findings, he just says, 'That’s what Rapid7 says.' If you find a way to clarify this with your team, I’d love to know your strategy because it’s driving me nuts!

What you’re seeing is typical. Rapid7 often checks for registry presence, which can yield false positives if an application is uninstalled. Frame your argument around the concept that Rapid7 sometimes identifies the absence of a fix instead of the presence of a vulnerability. This might resonate better with your non-technical team than diving into technical details about registry keys.