Myth 3: Having a combination of different, best-of-breed technology solutions in place increases the level of security
With as many as 70% of employees embracing remote work today, protecting endpoints has never been a more critical component of securing your perimeter. When looking at security solutions, there are a range of roads that an organisation can go down in terms of the technology they employ. It is often thought that by utilising a mixture of ‘best-of-breed’ technologies, each vulnerability will be individually covered, therefore spreading the risk and increasing security of systems. But, this isn’t necessarily the case, or the right approach.
Exploring this claim
When organisations look to introduce a ‘best-in-breed’ approach, they often spend a vast amount of money buying multiple security programs, each a separate tool that is the best at the individual problem it solves. Businesses often assume they are covering all bases and spreading the risk. If one system fails, there will be host of others to pick up the slack. Organisations using this approach might use one vendor for their firewall, another vendor for endpoint, and another again for log correlation. But, is this really the most effective and efficient way to do things?
Debunking this myth
People are often surprised to learn that most variants of the same technology are built on the same principle, with most firewalls using the same opensource libraries. Each programme will be susceptible to exactly the same vulnerabilities, so, in realty, having multiple systems doesn’t add any value at all.
There is also the issue of increased complexity. It can prove very time-consuming managing a host of separate platforms for even the most experienced of IT departments. Signing into multiple applications can quickly become a major inconvenience, and it may not be worth the hassle for many users.
Cost should also be factored in when debating the best approach for implementing security software. It’s not only time and resources that are eaten into when managing multiple platforms, but it’s the cost of purchasing and maintaining the software too. All in all, it can work out as a pretty costly solution.
So, if we’re not implementing a ‘best-in-breed’ approach, what is the alternative? Although it’s not always the case, it is often wiser to invest in a comprehensive, unified software suite.
In the vast majority of cases, its more beneficial to have a single platform where multiple security solutions can be managed, giving single pane of glass visibility. By prioritising the consolidation of solutions, organisations can reduce the number of people required to manage them, the amount of money spent and freeing up budget for other network areas in return. Organisations should ask themselves the question of best-of-breed vs best-in-need.
To find out how we can help you assess and manage your vulnerability, as well as select the best security solution for your organisation, contact us here.