Careers & People

6/28/2018
02:50 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

There's No Automating Your Way Out of Security Hiring Woes

Call it the paradox of cybersecurity automation: It makes your staff more productive but takes more quality experts to make it work.

Enterprises increasingly depend on security automation and orchestration to help them keep up with the growing volume of cyberthreats. But at the same time, backlash is growing against the vendor marketing trope that security automation is the answer to bridging the cybersecurity skills gap.

According to a Dark Reading survey conducted earlier this year, just 45% of organizations report that their security teams are fully staffed, and only 33% say they're armed with the right mix of skills they need to meet the threats coming in the next year. More startlingly, 14% of those surveyed say there are plenty of skilled cybersecurity workers available to fill the ranks. Meantime, the latest Global Information Security Workforce Study from (ISC)2 says we'll be facing a shortfall of security workers of 1.8 million by 2022.

And those are just a sampling of the skills shortage metrics. There are plenty more where these came from.

The reflexive answer from many in the industry is, "Well, let's just automate our way out of this problem!" But security leaders on the front line of enterprise defense are stepping forward with more frequency to poke holes in that simplistic solution. The latest evidence of this comes by way of a study out this week from Ponemon Institute and Juniper Networks. 

The study shows that, yes, 64% of organizations believe security automation can increase the productivity of their security personnel. And 60% believe automated correlation of threat behavior is essential to addressing the volume of threats today.  

But at the same time, respondents' answers indicate that automation isn't going to solve the team-building problem. In fact, those hiring issues are making it difficult for many organizations to effectively leverage security automation. The study shows only 35% of organizations say their organizations have the in-house skills to effectively use security automation for responding to threats.  

"Automation will do anything but close the cybersecurity staffing gap," says Druva CISO Drew Nelson. "Apply automation to security, and you are in a catch-22. Any tasks that are automated are likely to be simple, with defined start and end points. Any 'remaining items' are going to be left over for the security staff to carry out. Arguably, these are going to be the more painful and arduous tasks that are repetitive in nature but require deep technical and domain knowledge."

Not only are the incident response and risk mitigation tasks left behind by automation more likely to require a more skilled responder to deal with, but getting automation properly set up also is an issue. More than half of organizations say they're unable to recruit knowledgeable or skilled personnel to deploy their security automation tools. It also often requires a lot of in-the-field experience to identify and codify the processes to be automated within any given organization. And then there is the issue of integration. The study shows that 63% of organizations report difficulties integrating their security automation technology and tools with existing systems.

"While the desire to automate is understandable, the process of setting up the automation can be incredibly complex and resource-draining," says Tim Helming, director of product management at DomainTools, which recently sponsored a different Ponemon Institute survey out last month that offered up similar results as this most recent study. That research concluded that automation is actually exacerbating rather than helping the skills shortage problem.

Related Content:

Why Cybercriminals Attack: A DARK READING VIRTUAL EVENT Wednesday, June 27. Industry experts will offer a range of information and insight on who the bad guys are – and why they might be targeting your enterprise. Go here for more information on this free event.

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
High Stress Levels Impacting CISOs Physically, Mentally
Jai Vijayan, Freelance writer,  2/14/2019
Valentine's Emails Laced with Gandcrab Ransomware
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/14/2019
Making the Case for a Cybersecurity Moon Shot
Adam Shostack, Consultant, Entrepreneur, Technologist, Game Designer,  2/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Data breach fears and the need to comply with regulations such as GDPR are two major drivers increased spending on security products and technologies. But other factors are contributing to the trend as well. Find out more about how enterprises are attacking the cybersecurity problem by reading our report today.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-8980
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
A memory leak in the kernel_read_file function in fs/exec.c in the Linux kernel through 4.20.11 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) by triggering vfs_read failures.
CVE-2019-8979
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
Koseven through 3.3.9, and Kohana through 3.3.6, has SQL Injection when the order_by() parameter can be controlled.
CVE-2013-7469
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
Seafile through 6.2.11 always uses the same Initialization Vector (IV) with Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) Mode to encrypt private data, making it easier to conduct chosen-plaintext attacks or dictionary attacks.
CVE-2018-20146
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
An issue was discovered in Liquidware ProfileUnity before 6.8.0 with Liquidware FlexApp before 6.8.0. A local user could obtain administrator rights, as demonstrated by use of PowerShell.
CVE-2019-5727
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
Splunk Web in Splunk Enterprise 6.5.x before 6.5.5, 6.4.x before 6.4.9, 6.3.x before 6.3.12, 6.2.x before 6.2.14, 6.1.x before 6.1.14, and 6.0.x before 6.0.15 and Splunk Light before 6.6.0 has Persistent XSS, aka SPL-138827.