Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

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
Florida Town Pays $600K to Ransomware Operators
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  6/20/2019
Pledges to Not Pay Ransomware Hit Reality
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  6/21/2019
AWS CISO Talks Risk Reduction, Development, Recruitment
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/25/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-10133
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
A flaw was found in Moodle before 3.7, 3.6.4, 3.5.6, 3.4.9 and 3.1.18. The form to upload cohorts contained a redirect field, which was not restricted to internal URLs.
CVE-2019-10134
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
A flaw was found in Moodle before 3.7, 3.6.4, 3.5.6, 3.4.9 and 3.1.18. The size of users' private file uploads via email were not correctly checked, so their quota allowance could be exceeded.
CVE-2019-10154
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
A flaw was found in Moodle before versions 3.7, 3.6.4. A web service fetching messages was not restricted to the current user's conversations.
CVE-2019-9039
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
The Couchbase Sync Gateway 2.1.2 in combination with a Couchbase Server is affected by a previously undisclosed N1QL-injection vulnerability in the REST API. An attacker with access to the public REST API can insert additional N1QL statements through the parameters ?startkey? and ?endkey? of the ?_a...
CVE-2018-20846
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
Out-of-bounds accesses in the functions pi_next_lrcp, pi_next_rlcp, pi_next_rpcl, pi_next_pcrl, pi_next_rpcl, and pi_next_cprl in openmj2/pi.c in OpenJPEG through 2.3.0 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash).