In the world of cybersecurity, the discrepancy between vendor promises and actual product performance in live environments is a stark reality that organizations must navigate. Performance metrics may dazzle in datasheets but frequently fall short in real-world applications. When all security features are engaged, actual throughput often diminishes significantly, and latency issues can cause a device to be relegated to a passive state where their blocking features are disabled.
This gap isn’t limited to performance metrics alone. When vendors claim protection against certain threats, it is important to ask for the details: What are the specific operating system, product, and engine versions required? What firmware version, software version, and configurations are necessary? It’s imperative to put these claims to the test to ensure the security product indeed defends against threats as promised. On numerous occasions CyberRatings has observed a failure in products to protect against specific attacks, despite vendor assurances. Relying solely on vendor claims can cultivate a dangerous illusion of security, potentially exposing them to heightened risk.
A well-structured test plan can reveal that lower performance levels might be perfectly adequate for certain network segments, potentially leading to significant cost savings. Without conducting relevant in-house tests, organizations risk being swayed into unnecessary overspending, acquiring devices with excessive performance capabilities or coverage that are not essential for their specific environment.
In situations where in-house testing is not feasible, it’s vital to prioritize products that have undergone rigorous evaluation by independent, security-focused third-party testing organizations for shortlisting. This approach provides at least a baseline assurance in the product selection process. Although allocating a budget for this additional step in the procurement process may pose challenges, it’s crucial for management to explicitly acknowledge and accept the risks associated with foregoing in-house testing.
In conclusion, the key takeaway for organizations navigating the cybersecurity landscape is clear: Vendor claims are a starting point, not a guarantee. Rigorous, real-world testing remains an indispensable step in ensuring that the chosen security solutions genuinely align with an organization’s specific needs and effectively safeguard against the ever-evolving array of cyber threats.
The Risks of Not Testing:
- False Sense of Security: Security solutions can create a deceptive safety net if you don’t know their limits. Without rigorous testing, weaknesses remain hidden, leaving critical systems vulnerable to both internal and external threats.
- Performance Pitfalls: A security product’s real-world performance can drastically differ from vendor claims. When deployed in a live network, issues like high latency and frequent false positives can result in active devices being redeployed in a passive state or having blocking disabled, significantly reducing their effectiveness.
- Security Shortcomings: Products may not work with your configuration or you may need to update software or firmware in order to gain protection. Or there may be a bug in the cybersecurity product.
- Overspending: Without proper testing, organizations risk overspending on solutions that overpromise and underdeliver, draining valuable financial resources.
Crafting an Enterprise-Specific Testing Plan:
- Replicate Your Environment: Develop a test plan that mirrors your network’s specific conditions. This ensures that the product’s performance and effectiveness are evaluated in a relevant context.
- Ongoing Evaluation: Security threats evolve; so should your testing. Regularly assess your security products even post-deployment to adapt to new threats and maintain an effective security posture.
- Leverage External Expertise: When in-house resources are limited, external test labs offer invaluable expertise and tools for thorough product evaluation.