“The boxer gets the most advantage from his sparring -porter …”
– epique, 50-135 to
Hands up. The chin is hidden. The knees are bent. The bell ringing, and both boxers meet in the center and circle. Red throws away three jabs, throws the fourth, and – Bang – with the right hand on the blue down the center.
It was not the first day of Bli, and despite its solid protection in front of the mirror, it was pressing. But something has changed in the ring; A variety of strokes, fint, intensity – it is not like the modeling of his coach. Is my protection enough to resist this? He wonders Do I even have a defense?
His coach assures him, “If it weren’t for all your practice, you wouldn’t protect these first blows. You have a defense – now you need it calibrated. And it happens in the ring.”
Cybersecurity is no different. You can raise your hands – unfolding the right architecture, policy and safety measures – but the smallest gap in your protection can allow the attacker to land. The only way to check your willingness is the pressure, sparring in the ring.
The difference between practice and a real fight
In the boxing sparring partners are rich. Every day the fighters go out into the ring to hone their skills against true opponents. But in cybersecurity sparring -partners are more rare. Equivalent is the penetration testing, but the fifty occurs in a typical organization only once a year, and maybe twice, at best each quarter. This requires extensive preparation, the conclusion of contracts for expensive specialized agency and hips from the environment. As a result, the security group often goes for months without faced with a real competition. They are compatible, their hands up and their chin is tucked. But would they be stable under the attack?
The consequences of infrequent testing
1. Drift: Slow erosion protection
When the boxer goes the moon, no sparring, their intuition dull. He becomes a victim of a concept known as an “inch” where he has the right defensive step, but he misses it in inches, getting into the shots he knows how to protect. In cybersecurity it looks like The configuration of drift: Posted changes in the environment, be it new users, outdated assets, no longer visiting ports, or gradual loss in defensive calibration. Over time, the blanks arise not because the defense has left, but because they fell out of alignment.
2. Fucking spaces: bounds of shadows
A boxer and their coach can only get so far in training. The shadow boxes and drills help, but the coach will not cause inconspicuous mistakes that can leave the boxer vulnerable. They also cannot repeat the unpredictability of a true opponent. There are just too many things that can go wrong. The only way to train your boxer is to learn how he gets, and then to diagnose why.
Similarly, the surface of the attack is huge and constantly developing. No one can foresee every possible attack vector and identify every vulnerability. The only way to reveal the blanks is to check the real attack scenarios several times.
3. Limited Testing Area: The Danger of Partial Testing
The coach needs to see how their fighter tested on various opponents. It can be in order against the opponent who throws his head mainly, but how about the body or team strokes? These can be areas to improve. If a security team tests only on one or another threat and does not extend its range to other feats, whether it is exposed passwords or incorrect configurations, they risk leaving themselves to be exposed to any weak access point that the attacker will find. For example, a web application can be safe, but how about accounting leaks or dubious API integration?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3ndksdbjo0
The context matters when it comes to prioritizing fixes
Not every vulnerability is a knockout. Just as a unique boxer style can offset the technical deficiencies, cybersecurity control can mitigate the risks. Take Muhammad Ali by the standards of the textbook, its protection was not completed, but its athleticism and adaptation made it inviolable. Similarly, the low front hand Floida Mayvezer may seem weak, but his shoulder roll turned him into defensive force.
In cybersecurity, vulnerability scanners often emphasize dozens – if not hundreds are problems. But not all of them are important. All IT environments are different, and CVE at high speed can be neutralized by compensatory control, such as a network segmentation or a rigorous access policy. The context is key because it gives you the necessary understanding of what requires immediate attention compared to what is not.
High cost of infrequent testing
The test value on the true enemy is not new. Boxers Sparre to prepare for fighting. Cybersecurity teams conduct penetration tests to harden their protection. But what if the boxers had to pay tens of thousands of dollars every time they are sparring? Their training would only happen in the ring – during the struggle – and the cost of failure will be devastating.
This is a reality for many organizations. Traditional testing for the penetration of expensive, time -consuming and often limited in volume. As a result, many teams only check once a year, leaving their defense without control for months. When the attack occurs, the blanks are exposed – and the price is high.
Continuous, active testing
In order to truly harden their defense, organizations must go beyond infrequent annual testing. Instead they need continuous, automated testing This imitates real attacks. These tools imitate the competition activity, revealing the gaps and providing effective ideas about where to strengthen security control, how to list protection and ensure accurate recovery. Do it all with a regular frequency and without the high cost of traditional testing.
By combining an automated security check with human examination, organizations can support a strong defensive posture and adapt to developing threats.
Learn more about the automated petting by visiting Front.
Note: This article is written and contributed to William Chaffer, a senior sales representative in Pentera.
