Adopting more security tools doesn’t keep you safe, it just overloads your teams and creates greater risks
While most security decision makers are expanding their security tools rather than replacing them, this could create greater risks for practitioners.
According to new Google Workspace research, while nearly two-thirds (62%) of UK-based IT leaders admitted to adding new security tools as they go along, those ending up with ten or more experience more security incidents than those with fewer.
Justin Anderson, director of Google Workspace for the UK and Ireland, said the study highlights a long-running problem for cybersecurity practitioners, with many organizations falling into the trap of overloading teams with tools in the belief it will bolster broader resilience,
“This piecemeal approach to security not only fails to address the root of the problem but often exacerbates it by creating a complex and unwieldy security environment that is difficult to manage effectively,” Anderson said.
Meanwhile, the survey from Google Workspace found legacy tech is increasingly becoming a liability. This is an acute problem in the UK, where three-quarters of security leaders believe it’s left them ill-equipped to handle the challenges of modern security threats, compared with just 59% globally.
However, newer technologies are causing concern too. More than three-quarters of respondents told Google they believed that generative AI usage has contributed to a rise in security incidents – much more than the global average of 65%.
Many IT leaders are also slow to act on these concerns, the study noted. Only a quarter of respondents said they have introduced AI-specific security policies, compared to a global average of 41%.
“This increase in security concerns related to AI can be attributed to several factors, including the rise of ‘shadow AI’ inside of companies – the use of generative AI tools that haven’t been vetted and authorized by the IT and security teams,” said Anderson.
“The challenge isn’t that AI is inherently riskier, it’s that unsanctioned and ad hoc use of shadow AI inside of companies creates an extremely challenging task for security administrators to protect what they can’t see and can’t measure.”
And as a result of all this pressure, 43% of UK IT and security leaders say that their teams are overwhelmed and burned out by security threats – 15 percentage points higher than the global average.
The answer to this, according to Google, is to move away from legacy technology and adopt solutions that are secure by design while streamlining the suite of security solutions harnessed by teams.
The issue of proliferating security tools was addressed at this year’s Check Point Software Cyber Leader Summit, with industry experts warning that the sheer volume of tools used by teams is overloading practitioners and creating gaps within organizations’ defenses.
Speaking to ITPro at the time, Maxine Holt, senior director of research and content at Omdia, said there is no one-size-fits-all solution or approach for many businesses, and that IT leaders should temper expectations when consolidating their tool sprawl.
“You can’t have one platform that does everything. Whether it’s Check Point, Microsoft, or Palo Alto, they don’t do everything that’s needed in the security portfolio, so you’re going to need multiple platforms.”
Consolidation does work, Holt noted. But again this shouldn’t be viewed as an attempt for teams to place all their eggs in one basket. Even modest attempts to consolidate tool sprawl can deliver benefits.
“You will end up with typically multiple security platforms to be able to drive down that complexity, and that’s better than 50 disparate products,” she told ITPro.
Source link
