Cybersecurity’s Critical Question: Do Your Controls Actually Work?
In our ever-evolving cybersecurity landscape, organisations face a critical question: How do they truly know if their security controls work? While traditional risk assessments have been the standard evaluation method, sophisticated threats have introduced a more active methodology: security posture validation. Understanding the difference between these approaches is essential for strengthening defences, especially for organisations facing regulatory pressures from NIS2, DORA, and UK CSRA frameworks.
Key Takeaways
- Security posture validation actively tests controls against real-world attack scenarios
- Traditional risk assessments focus on theoretical evaluations rather than testing actual effectiveness
- Validation provides concrete vulnerability evidence while assessments offer broader threat perspectives
- Modern regulatory frameworks increasingly require evidence-based validation approaches
- Combining both methodologies provides the most comprehensive security coverage
Understanding Security Posture Validation
Security posture validation takes a hands-on approach to cybersecurity by testing controls against real-world attack scenarios. Unlike theoretical assessments, it identifies actual vulnerabilities through controlled exploitation attempts, providing empirical evidence of security effectiveness.
At its core, this methodology simulates the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) that attackers use in the wild, leveraging frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK to reflect current threat behaviours. For example, Validato’s approach maps directly to this framework, enabling targeted testing against industry-specific threats.
The validation process typically involves:
- Safely executing attack techniques against endpoints
- Testing network vulnerability to penetration
- Evaluating application security controls
- Measuring detection and prevention capabilities in real-time
What is a Traditional Risk Assessment?
Traditional risk assessment takes a theoretical approach to security evaluation, focusing on identifying potential threats through documentation review, interviews, and questionnaires rather than active testing. This methodology typically evaluates the likelihood and potential impact of various threats to determine overall risk levels.
The assessment process generally includes:
- Stakeholder interviews and documentation review
- Analysis of existing security policies
- Examination of network architectures
- Review of system configurations
Whilst comprehensive in scope, traditional assessments rely heavily on assessor expertise and information accuracy. They produce extensive documentation about theoretical vulnerabilities but cannot definitively determine if controls work against current threats.
Key Differences in Methodology and Outcomes
| Aspect | Security Posture Validation | Risk Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Approach | Active simulation of attacks | Theoretical analysis of vulnerabilities |
| Evidence type | Empirical proof of effectiveness | Documentation-based assumptions |
| Time requirement | Faster with automated platforms | Typically lengthy manual process |
| Result specificity | Precise findings with clear remediation paths | Broader findings with general recommendations |
| Update frequency | Can be conducted continuously | Usually point-in-time assessments |
The most significant difference lies in approach: validation actively tests controls against real attack techniques, whilst assessments evaluate potential vulnerabilities without testing exploitation. This creates fundamentally different outcomes: validation provides concrete evidence of security gaps, whilst assessments offer broader views of theoretical risks.
Actionability represents another key difference. Validation typically delivers specific, prioritised findings with clear remediation steps, whilst assessments provide more general recommendations requiring further investigation.
Why Validation Matters for Compliance
Modern regulatory frameworks increasingly demand evidence-based security approaches. Regulations like NIS2, DORA, and UK CSRA require organisations to demonstrate control effectiveness, not just existence. Security posture validation provides the empirical evidence these regulations demand.
Regulatory Requirements
- NIS2: Critical infrastructure operators must implement and prove effective technical measures
- DORA: Financial entities must maintain resilient ICT systems with validated security measures
- UK CSRA: Requires evidence of control effectiveness against realistic threats
By testing controls against current threat techniques, validation helps demonstrate compliance whilst identifying specific improvements needed to enhance security posture.
How to Choose the Right Approach for Your Needs
Selecting between validation and assessment—or determining how to combine them—depends on several factors:
- Organisational size and industry: Regulated industries with 500-25,000 employees typically need both approaches, with more frequent validation testing
- Compliance requirements: Those subject to NIS2, DORA, or UK CSRA should prioritise validation to meet evidence requirements
- Security maturity: Less mature organisations might start with risk assessment before implementing validation
- Available resources: Consider budget constraints and internal capabilities when selecting approaches
Many organisations find value in beginning with a comprehensive risk assessment, then implementing regular security posture validation to test specific controls. This combined approach provides both broad coverage and specific, actionable findings.
Common Challenges Addressed by Posture Validation
Security posture validation addresses several critical security challenges that traditional assessments often miss:
Access Control Issues
Identifying excessive user privileges that create attack paths
Configuration Problems
Uncovering misconfigurations across Windows, Linux, and Mac environments
Ransomware Resilience
Testing endpoint security control effectiveness against ransomware techniques
Detection Gaps
Validating detection capabilities for common attack patterns
By simulating actual attack techniques, validation reveals how threat actors might exploit specific configurations to access systems—scenarios that might appear as only theoretical risks in traditional assessments. This approach is particularly valuable for hardening systems against ransomware, one of today’s most significant threats.
Implementing a Combined Security Strategy
A comprehensive security strategy leverages both methodologies in complementary ways:
- Baseline Assessment: Begin with a risk assessment to identify broad security concerns
- Targeted Validation: Implement security posture validation to test specific controls against priority threats
- Prioritised Remediation: Use validation findings to address identified vulnerabilities
- Continuous Improvement: Regularly validate controls as threats and systems evolve
- Periodic Reassessment: Periodically review overall risk to identify new areas requiring validation
This integrated approach combines the comprehensive coverage of risk assessments with the specific, actionable insights of security posture validation. Tools like Validato’s automated security validation platform enable regular testing against the MITRE ATT&CK framework, ensuring protection against evolving threats.
By implementing this combined strategy, organisations can better understand their security posture, meet regulatory requirements, and efficiently allocate resources to address critical vulnerabilities—ultimately strengthening resilience against today’s sophisticated cyber threats.
If you’re interested in learning more, contact our expert team today.
