Blog

At this point in the series, a pattern should be hard to miss. Organizations don’t only test infrequently. Over time, they learn to live with what testing reveals.

By this point in the series, one pattern should be unmistakable: many organizations do test. They do find issues. And yet, testing cadence still stalls.

By now, it should be clear that a lack of testing cadence isn’t just a tooling or a budget problem. Sometimes the biggest barrier is quieter than that. It sits within the organization, in how teams interpret results, how

Going Beyond Complaince Driven Testing Going Beyond Complaince

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

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 In Part 2, we looked at the budget angle and how outdated purchasing

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