Quit Making Security Tougher Than It Should Be

Cybersecurity is among the most critical activities in a contemporary organization. Yet whereas its aim is unambiguous from securing systems, information, and human life, the approach most teams take is all wrong: it has unnecessarily complicated is instead of bringing clarity and surety, complexity generates inefficiency, confounds rather than enlightens, and has holes in coverage.
It’s true that more is better. More tools, more frameworks, and more drastic alterations can actually make security less secure. Stepping back and paring down allows organizations to create stronger, more viable, and less taxing defenses that are easier on teams to implement and operate.

The Trap of Overcomplication

It is all too simple to fall into “more equals safer.” Teams bring in additional tools to deal with each new threat, embrace frameworks as if they were absolute laws, or try grand revamps that intimidate workers. Good intention, is its result frequently just clutter?
For instance, a 2023 Ponemon Institute survey discovered that 71% of information security and information technology professionals opined that their security functions are much too complicated to efficiently size. Complexity like that doesn’t yield robust security, it yields additional blind spots and slower reaction rates.

Sprawl of Tools: When More is Less

One of the simplest examples of this challenge is the sprawl of tools. You have dozens of isolated tools within most security stacks. They all do something useful in isolation, but all combined make it difficult to control things.
According to studies, over 76% of businesses suffer from tool sprawl that results in inefficiency as well as security gaps. Gartner has further stated that security directors currently must juggle more than 60 distinct security tools simultaneously, a figure that is unsustainable on any scale.
This sprawl makes it more difficult to identify risk and easier to attack blind spots. It is easier to combine and correlate tools to cut cost as well as improve visibility and incident response.

National Interests

Standards like NIST, CIS, and ISO are good sources of information. They were created as flexible guides, however, not as a matter-of-course blueprints. Too often, most businesses approach them as check-the-box requirements, which really hinders progress and irritates teams.
Think about this: ISACA’s State of Cybersecurity 2023 report found that 52% of security leaders indicated that compliance obligations are the greatest resource consumed which frequently gives less time to proactive defense.
Better is to work with frameworks as a compass and not as a cage. Utilize them to set direction and then tailor practice to suit that environment's specific needs. This compromise keeps defenses loose and current and encourages innovation rather than inhibiting it.

Big Bang Transformations: Risks of Radical Change

Another error is the “big bang” strategy which is when massive security makeovers are designed to fix everything all at once. Hunky-dory in principle, such efforts typically incur huge expenditures, severe dislocations, and employee pushback. When overwhelmed teams put in less effort to adopt a new approach, changes do not stick.
By contrast, staged rollouts have been much more successful. Microsoft found a case study of companies that took to Zero Trust incrementally. Beginning with identity, devices and networks met higher adoption rates and longer-term durability than did an all-at-once overhaul.

What Really Works

So how do organizations prevent themselves from oversimplifying security? The solution is small incremental improvements. By chipping away at large objectives into achievable steps, teams can make significant strides without getting exhausted.

Such as:

• Upgrade two duplicative tools into a combined platform.

• Modify an existing framework requirement to suit your workflow better.

• Introduce a new policy to an individual department before propagating it through the company.

These small incremental adjustments lower friction, create momentum, and create an environment where security is within reach rather than overwhelming. They accumulate to a flexible strong defense stance that stays competitive against increasingly sophisticated threats.

The Big Picture

Cybersecurity doesn’t have to be more difficult than it is already. Complexity is about understanding that complexity is not strength. Organizations can make it easier by cutting tool sprawl, treating frameworks as malleable guides, introducing changes gradually, and aiming for gradual progress without compromise on protection.
Simpleness, incidentally, is a competitive advantage. It keeps teams motivated, lowering risk, and ensuring that defenses are strong on paper yet efficient in practice.