As we conclude our ‘Mind the Gap’ series, it’s time to tie together all the threads we’ve explored—awareness, misconfigurations, third-party risks, integration challenges, and infrastructure design. A recurring theme has been that security is not simply a product or a point solution; it’s an ongoing process requiring alignment across people, processes, and technology.
Demarcation Lines and Ownership
One of the biggest pitfalls in security is assuming someone else is handling a particular risk. This is especially true in complex ecosystems where multiple suppliers and service providers intersect. For example, is your cloud provider responsible for patching your virtual machines, or is that up to your internal team? If a managed services provider delivers support, who ensures that configurations align with your security policies? Clear demarcation lines are essential. Each party—internal and external—must understand their specific responsibilities and accountability. This can be formalised through contracts, Service Level Agreements (SLAs), and security addendums that define who owns which tasks and who is liable if something goes wrong.
Fostering a Culture of Shared Accountability
Beyond contractual obligations, a culture of shared accountability is vital. If different departments and suppliers merely tick boxes, no one is effectively watching the bigger picture. Regular meetings and open communication channels ensure that security concerns can be raised, discussed, and acted upon promptly. Many organisations find success in creating cross-functional security committees that include representatives from each department and key supplier stakeholders.
Bringing It All Together: Gaps and the Kill Chain
From our previous blogs, we see that gaps appear in every phase of the kill chain:
- Reconnaissance: Lack of visibility into external exposure.
- Delivery: Poor user awareness and misconfigurations that allow malicious payloads to slip through.
- Exploitation and Installation: Overprivileged access and trust in third parties.
- Command and Control: Disjointed systems failing to correlate alerts of suspicious outbound traffic.
- Actions on Objectives: Flat networks and poor infrastructure design enabling lateral movement.
Closing these gaps requires a holistic approach—one that continuously evaluates risks at each kill chain stage and matches them with effective controls.
Actionable Steps to Close the Gaps
- Perform Comprehensive Gap Assessments: Deploy vulnerability scans, penetration tests, and threat hunting exercises to identify unseen exposures.
- Implement Continuous Monitoring: Real-time monitoring of configurations, network traffic, and user behaviour can highlight anomalies before they escalate.
- Review and Update Policies: Security policies must be living documents, adapting to new threats and incorporating lessons learned from incidents.
- Invest in Training: Ongoing and role-specific training fosters a security-aware workforce that actively helps mitigate risks.
- Engage with Suppliers: Regularly assess third-party security postures. Encourage them to adopt standards and best practices, and don’t be afraid to switch if they fall short.
Iterative Improvements and Future-Readiness
Security is never “finished.” Threat actors evolve their tactics, and business transformations—migrations to the cloud, expansions into new markets—introduce fresh variables. By embracing an iterative improvement cycle, you maintain a dynamic defence that adapts to change. Regularly revisit your security roadmap, refining controls, updating strategies, and integrating new technologies as needed.
Throughout this series, we’ve highlighted how security gaps can lurk in unexpected places—within people, processes, technologies, and partnerships. Awareness and visibility are paramount: you can’t fix what you don’t know is broken. By fostering a culture of shared responsibility, aligning tools and processes, and continuously scanning for new vulnerabilities, organisations can make significant strides in closing gaps.
Remember, attackers thrive on the oversights and assumptions that create these weak points. By “minding the gap” and proactively addressing vulnerabilities, you set a strong foundation for resilience—even in the face of an ever-evolving threat landscape.