{"id":5937,"date":"2025-11-25T07:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-11-25T07:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/?p=5937"},"modified":"2025-11-25T07:00:00","modified_gmt":"2025-11-25T07:00:00","slug":"7-signs-your-cybersecurity-framework-needs-rebuilding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/?p=5937","title":{"rendered":"7 signs your cybersecurity framework needs rebuilding"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n

Cybersecurity frameworks are the guidelines enterprises use to guard against cyberattacks. The typical framework describes the steps needed to address various cybersecurity risks, detecting latent vulnerabilities, and generally improving the enterprise\u2019s digital defense. Any gaps discovered in the attack surface indicates that immediate steps should be taken to rebuild and strengthen cyber resilience.<\/p>\n

Keri Pearlson<\/a>, a senior lecturer and principal research scientist at the MIT Sloan School of Management, says there are many signs that indicate an existing cybersecurity framework needs attention. \u201cIf your cybersecurity framework hasn\u2019t been reviewed in the last two months, if you haven\u2019t been dynamically updating things, or if your team hasn\u2019t yet incorporated AI into your cybersecurity thinking, you need to review and possibly rebuild your framework,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n

Are you risking enterprise security by relying on an outdated security framework? Here are warning signs that indicate it may be time for a much-need overhaul.<\/p>\n

1. Not having a dynamic process for recognizing changes<\/h2>\n

The biggest mistake, Pearlson says, is failing to recognize that the current plan is out of date or simply not working. Breaches happen, but that doesn\u2019t always mean your cyber framework needs rebuilding. It does, however, indicate that the framework needs to be rethought and redesigned.<\/p>\n

Building a cyber-resilient organization requires thinking differently, Pearlson states. The best approach, she suggests, is deploying a dynamic process that watches for changes in the environment and initiates a rebuilding process.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe key is to have the right sensing and responding mechanism \u2014 which is likely a combination of technology and human activities,\u201d she says, noting that technology can sense change and identify anomalies, and people can evaluate whether the change is a risk that requires attention and investment.<\/p>\n

2. Experiencing a successful cyberattack \u2014 of any size<\/h2>\n

Nothing highlights a weak cybersecurity framework better than a breach, says Steven Bucher<\/a>, CSO at Mastercard. \u201cI\u2019ve seen firsthand how even a minor incident can reveal outdated protocols or gaps in employee training,\u201d he states. \u201cIf your framework hasn\u2019t kept pace with evolving threats or business needs, it\u2019s time for a rebuild.\u201d<\/p>\n

Cyber threats are always evolving, so staying proactive with regular reviews and fostering a culture of cybersecurity awareness will help catch issues before they become crises, Bucher says. \u201cUltimately, keeping your framework robust and up-to-date is the best way to protect your organization and maintain trust.\u201d<\/p>\n

3. Continuous oversight becomes a challenge<\/h2>\n

If your framework can\u2019t provide continuous oversight, or support proactive risk management, then it\u2019s time to rebuild by aligning with established standards, such as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework<\/a>, and integrating industry-specific compliance requirements as needed, says Dave Floyd<\/a>, vice president of cybersecurity sales and service for Hughes Network Systems.<\/p>\n

The best approach to rebuild a cybersecurity framework is to begin with the NIST framework and then overlay it with industry-specific compliance requirements, Floyd advises. This approach ensures that best practices and regulatory obligations for healthcare, financial, and other enterprises are fully addressed.<\/p>\n

4. Your formal framework review process is measured in years<\/h2>\n

If there haven\u2019t been any material changes to your framework in the past three-plus years, it\u2019s a strong indication that your framework may be outdated, says Sandra McLeod<\/a>, CISO at Zoom. \u201cThe cybersecurity landscape has evolved rapidly, especially with the rise of generative AI \u2014 your framework should reflect these shifts.\u201d<\/p>\n

McLeod recommends a complete a biannual framework review combined with a cursory review during the gap years. \u201cThis helps to ensure that the framework stays aligned with evolving threats, business changes, and regulatory requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ideally, security leaders should always have their security framework in mind while maintaining a rough, running list of areas that could be improved, streamlined, or clarified, McLeod suggests. \u201cThese informal insights should be brought into discussions during the cursory reviews to keep continuous improvement top of mind.\u201d<\/p>\n

5. You\u2019re continually chasing alerts without performing predictive assessments<\/h2>\n

If your organization is continually in a reactive state instead of a proactive posture, it\u2019s time to re-evaluate the framework, says Nima Baiati<\/a>, executive director and general manager of commercial software and security solutions at Lenovo.<\/p>\n

If an organization is stuck in a cycle of continually chasing alerts and incidents, as well as reporting events after the fact instead of performing predictive threat assessments<\/a>, data analysis, and forward planning, it\u2019s time for a change, Baiati advises. \u201cOf course, there will still be some reactive situations, but if they consume most of the bandwidth of daily operations, it\u2019s probably just a matter of time before more significant incidents occur.\u201d<\/p>\n

Baiati suggests beginning with a solid understanding of your organization\u2019s risk appetite<\/a> and overall business strategy. \u201cSecurity, when done right, can be a competitive advantage, since it minimizes operational disruption and optimizes trust,\u201d he states. For example, financial institutions have a low appetite for risk and a critical need to protect the integrity of their data and their reputation. Their business strategy and security are inherently connected<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Also, because team members are more mobile than ever, endpoint security is now a focus for network security and needs to be included in the cybersecurity framework. \u201cTo build strong endpoint security, organizations should take a comprehensive, layered approach that safeguards all aspects of their digital environment \u2014 firmware, hardware, software, and the supply chain,\u201d Baiati says. \u201cEvaluate both on-device and cloud-based AI applications to ensure effective, real-time threat detection and response.\u201d<\/p>\n

6. KRIs and KPIs are trending negatively<\/h2>\n

If there\u2019s a sense that key risk indicators (KRIs) and key performance indicators (KPIs) are headed in an unanticipated direction, your framework may need to be re-evaluated, says Sameer Ansari<\/a>, head of the data privacy team lead at audit, risk, and compliance consultancy Protiviti.<\/p>\n

Organizations that view their cybersecurity framework as a compliance checklist rather than as a tool to inform proper risk decisions are courting danger, Ansari warns. \u201cOrganizations should consider key business objectives and risks that they may face and apply the framework through that lens.\u201d<\/p>\n

When building or updating a framework, many cybersecurity leaders find themselves caught up in benchmarking or comparing themselves to other firms instead of focusing on what matters to their organization, Ansari says. Worse yet is believing that quantity is more important than quality. \u201cSome cybersecurity chiefs will try to combine several different frameworks, creating an unmanageable \u2018Frankenstein framework\u2019 that becomes very hard to manage and sustain,\u201d he warns.<\/p>\n

7. You\u2019ve taken a compliance-based approach<\/h2>\n

A common mistake many cybersecurity leaders make is designing a framework that\u2019s primarily designed to \u201cpass the audit,\u201d says Daniel Tobok<\/a>, CEO of incident response firm CYPFER, instead of targeting business objectives. He cautions that a compliance-only approach often excludes critical input from non-IT stakeholders and typically results in a framework that looks good on paper but fails to deliver meaningful protection in practice.<\/p>\n

Ideally, a cybersecurity framework should evolve continuously, with priority given to the highest-risk areas, Tobok advises. \u201cHowever, a full rebuild may be necessary when the existing framework no longer protects the organization effectively, or when the cost of incremental fixes outweighs the benefits.\u201d<\/p>\n

He adds that rebuilding is also warranted immediately after a major enterprise shift, such as a change to the business model, an amended regulatory environment, or an extended threat landscape, all of which can make the existing framework outdated or insufficient.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Cybersecurity frameworks are the guidelines enterprises use to guard against cyberattacks. The typical framework describes the steps needed to address various cybersecurity risks, detecting latent vulnerabilities, and generally improving the enterprise\u2019s digital defense. Any gaps discovered in the attack surface indicates that immediate steps should be taken to rebuild and strengthen cyber resilience. Keri Pearlson, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":5938,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5937","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-education"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5937"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5937"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5937\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/5938"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5937"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5937"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5937"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}