CIOs acknowledge that no single Intelligence Vendor can provide 100% visibility into the risks posed by the internet
Security leaders agree that cybersecurity doesn’t have a silver bullet. Enterprises need to collaborate with different vendors to shape the common standards on how security solutions are purchased. The traditional checklist of firewall, a SIEM, endpoint protection, cloud security solution, a penetration service, etc. are all required to cover the bases.
CIOs must review the alternative solutions available, compare the features, cost, and allocate the currently available budget based on priority. Once a solution is finalized upon, they switch to the next solution. Enterprises don’t require multiple copies of the same type of solution but need a range of solutions. Thus it’s beneficial to opt for multiple vendors.
CISOs clarify that threat intelligence helps to build the enterprise’s security operations with accuracy and insights. Security teams need accurate data and proper visibility into what takes place outside the organizational perimeters. The visibility is dependent on the intelligence sources coverage offered by the vendor.
An organization’s visibility is restricted to what the vendors cover, making it very difficult to have complete visibility into the threats landscape. This is a dangerous risk because when it comes to cybersecurity, even a single incident will have a major impact on the enterprise. This incidence will, however, make the threat visibility much clearer, thus offering better chances of identifying a potential attack and preventing the threat.
However, since no threat intelligence vendors have the same coverage, a multiple vendors strategy is useful. CIOs say that numbers aren’t the most efficient method to implement this strategy. Selecting the highest number of vendors won’t work; security teams require vendors that complement each other.
Conventionally threat intelligence as a term covers a wide number of solutions. Threat intelligence vendors have similar services with differing coverage. Each will have varied focus and expertise. Some vendors will try to provide maximum coverage, provide a one-stop-shop, or focus on being a niche service provider and serving complimentary services.
CIOs say that when evaluating a threat intelligence vendor for the multi-vendor strategy, it is better to analyze the unique value propositions. This is relevant to intelligence more than the features. Are they capable of providing intelligence that others can’t? Do they cover deliverables of a certain type covered by others, and how good are they compared to others. Sometimes the high price of one vendor is worth due to the unique deliverables provided by them.
The overlap will exist in the multi-vendors strategy, but it is not always a bad idea. When the enterprise is dependent on threat intelligence data, it is impossible to evaluate the data from a single vendor without valid comparison. Multiple vendor data will help the organization to detect the strengths and liabilities of each service. It will prove to be useful both in an on-going manner and when it’s time to evaluate the existing solutions already deployed. This helps to create a new stack of threat intelligence vendors that easily complement each other.
Multiple solutions are not necessarily a new concept in the IT industry, but a multiple-vendors strategy for threat intelligence is not as widespread as it needs to be for the effective mitigation of potential threats.