Continuous Monitoring vs Periodic Testing: Which is More Effective
As the world becomes increasingly digitized, cybersecurity is becoming a crucial aspect of every organization. There are various methods of ensuring that an organization's digital infrastructure is secure, with continuous monitoring and periodic testing being the most common. However, depending on the organization's size, the budget allocated towards cybersecurity, and the business continuity plan, one method may be more effective than the other.
Continuous Monitoring
As the name implies, continuous monitoring is a process where the network and systems are monitored 24/7, to identify potential security threats. Continuous monitoring relies on tools such as intrusion detection systems and security information and event management, which collect data from all endpoints in real-time.
This approach provides more comprehensive security by identifying threats as they occur, rather than waiting for a scheduled test to happen. It's imperative to note that continuous monitoring is a proactive measure that detects threats before damage can be done, leading to fewer incidents and faster response times.
Periodic Testing
Periodic testing, on the other hand, is a scheduled testing process that determines the effectiveness of the organization's cybersecurity measures. This approach involves a dedicated cybersecurity team who conduct penetration testing or vulnerability assessments following a predetermined schedule.
Many organizations perform annual or bi-annual penetration tests to identify vulnerabilities in their security protocols. Periodic testing is crucial as it identifies gaps in the security, which continuous monitoring may miss due to the lack of context.
Which is More Effective?
Both methods have their merits, and each organization must choose which approach best fits their needs. Small organizations may not have the budget for continuous monitoring, while others may have a mature security posture that needs periodic testing to manage risk.
After analyzing the effectiveness of both approaches, Gartner found that continuous monitoring can reduce detection time by up to 90% and handling time by 70%. In contrast, periodic testing can take up to a month to detect advanced threats, leading to significant damage being done.
An effective cybersecurity approach is a holistic one that utilizes both continuous monitoring and periodic testing to improve the overall posture. Continuously monitoring networks and systems alongside scheduled testing can detect vulnerabilities and identify potential breaches, leading to a sound remediation plan.
Conclusion
Continuous monitoring and periodic testing are both essential components of any organization's cybersecurity approach. The two approaches complement each other and address different aspects of security. However, when it comes down to which is more effective, it depends on the organization's security strategy, budget, and operational objectives.
It's essential to recognize that while an effective cybersecurity posture may come with a cost, a data breach can result in significant financial loss and reputational damage.