Blog

If you’ve followed this series so far, you already know the punchline: most organizations don’t undertest because they don’t believe in testing. They undertest because the way testing shows up in the business makes it hard to

Most organizations do not set out to build an overcomplicated and inefficient security stack. It happens the same way clutter builds up in a garage. A new need shows up; you buy the right tool for the moment; it works, and you

By now, the pattern should be clear. When organizations undertest, it’s rarely because they don’t understand the value of testing. It’s because something about the way testing shows up in the business makes it hard to sustain.

In Part 1 of this series, we talked about why organizations reduce testing cadence when they’re afraid the findings will outpace their ability to fix them. In Part 2, we looked at the budget angle and how outdated purchasing

Secure access sounds straightforward. Give the right people access to the right systems, protect the connection, and move on.

In Part 1 of this series, we looked at how organizations limit testing because they’re worried they’ll create remediation backlogs they can’t close. In Part 2, we addressed the myth that frequent testing is “too expensive” and

The Myth That Continuous Testing Is “Too Expensive” In Part 1 of this series, we talked about the most common reason organizations slow down security testing: it’s not that they don’t believe in testing, it’s that they’re

For decades, security leaders have repeated a familiar refrain: you can’t secure what you can’t see. And yet, many organizations knowingly limit how often they perform vulnerability scanning and penetration testing, even as

In the first article of this series, we established the central paradox of working in regulated, air-gapped environments: compliance standards like NERC CIP, PCI DSS, and HIPAA demand both strict network isolation and timely,

From Vulnerability Lists to Exposure Reduction