Automation Won’t Save You From Security Fundamentals

Businesses today face a relentless onslaught of cyber threats, yet a surprising number continue to neglect the foundational security practices that form their first and most crucial line of defense. According to a recent industry report, many enterprises are falling short on basic but critical tasks like consistent patching, strict access control, and diligent vendor oversight. While leadership often champions broad resilience goals, the daily work required to achieve them frequently suffers from inconsistency and a lack of adequate funding.

The human element consistently emerges as the weakest link in the security chain. More than half of surveyed professionals point to issues with employee training, awareness, and follow-through as their primary obstacle. Staff members often unintentionally create vulnerabilities through the use of weak passwords, careless handling of emails, or by simply ignoring established security policies.

Alarmingly, 67% of organizations only review user access privileges on a quarterly basis or even less frequently. This infrequency creates extended windows where dormant accounts or excessive permissions can linger, posing a significant risk. Furthermore, 64% admit they do not perform continuous security assessments of their vendors after the initial onboarding process. These procedural lapses quietly open the door to potential misuse, insider threats, or compromise through a third party. The root of the problem lies in the fact that these processes have not been ingrained as routine. Without making access reviews and vendor assessments continuous and automated, organizations will always be playing catch-up, especially in complex environments managing hundreds of accounts and partners.

A significant part of the challenge is where leadership attention is focused. Only 32% of respondents indicated that cyber hygiene and resilience rank among their C-suite’s top priorities. In contrast, 43% listed cyber threats and crisis response as major concerns. This reveals a common mindset where cybersecurity is viewed more as a reaction to attacks rather than a proactive, preventive discipline. Crisis management naturally draws more attention because it feels urgent, while the ongoing work of security hygiene can appear routine and less strategically important. When executives prioritize response over prevention, security teams find it difficult to secure investment for the fundamentals, leading to a vicious cycle of avoidable incidents followed by only brief periods of heightened attention.

The slow pace of applying software patches continues to be a glaring vulnerability. A full 73% of organizations take longer than 24 hours to deploy critical updates, with about one in four taking anywhere from eight to thirty days. Every day of delay provides attackers with more time to exploit publicly known vulnerabilities. This issue typically stems from internal process friction, not a lack of awareness. Security teams can identify vulnerabilities quickly, but the actual patching requires coordination across multiple departments. Operations teams are concerned about system uptime, IT teams are juggling numerous other tickets, and the security department is left waiting for confirmation that fixes have been applied. While automation could help bridge this gap, many organizations still rely on manual approval processes and scheduled change windows that inherently slow down the response. Treating patching as a shared responsibility, supported by workflow automation, could dramatically shorten these dangerous exposure periods.

The consequences of these foundational failures are stark. Despite years of investment in security technology, two-thirds of organizations reported experiencing at least one security incident in the past year. Among those who had an incident, a overwhelming 92% believed that stronger cyber hygiene could have prevented it. The actual figure is likely even higher, given that many incidents go undetected or unreported. Despite this recognition, only 15% of respondents would describe their own hygiene programs as “leading.” The vast majority see their efforts as still developing or advancing, indicating a widespread acknowledgment that their basic security practices remain immature. Even the best security tools are rendered ineffective if they are not used consistently. Without automation, human follow-up becomes the limiting factor, and essential tasks are often the first to be neglected during busy periods.

There is, however, a promising path forward. The majority of respondents agree that AI and automation are proving instrumental in strengthening security hygiene. A significant 84% report that these technologies are enhancing their basic security practices, and 64% say that automation has actually increased their organization’s focus on the fundamentals. When asked what single change would most improve their hygiene programs, the top answer was expanding the use of and expertise in AI. A reassuringly low 21% felt that emerging technologies were a distraction from basic security work. Automation effectively reduces manual workloads and eliminates the need to constantly schedule routine tasks. Critical functions like access reviews, patch deployments, and log monitoring can be set to run on predictable, automated cycles. With repetitive work handled by machines, human teams are freed to focus on higher-value analysis and strategic risk management.

As one industry CISO noted, the fundamentals of security should not be the most difficult part, yet they persistently remain the weakest link. Too many teams still approach hygiene as a static checklist rather than a dynamic, living process. Intelligent automation transforms these basics into something continuous, measurable, and built directly into operations, effectively turning the goal of resilience into a tangible, deliverable outcome.

(Source: HelpNet Security)