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 In Part 2, we looked at the budget angle and how outdated purchasing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