The Hidden Cost of "Good Enough" Security
- Uncategorized
- by Earl Freeman
We’ve seen it happen more times than we can count. An organization invests heavily in compliance hires consultants, implements controls, passes their audit. Everyone celebrates. Mission accomplished.
Then six months later, they’re dealing with a breach.
What happened? They confused compliance with security. They implemented controls because the framework required them, not because those controls addressed their actual risks. They documented policies that nobody followed. They checked boxes without understanding why those boxes existed.
The Compliance Trap
Don’t get me wrong, compliance matters. Standards like NIST 800-53, FISMA, and FedRAMP exist for good reasons. They’re built on decades of experience and real-world incidents. Following them systematically does make you more secure.
But here’s the catch: compliance frameworks tell you the minimum you need to do, not necessarily what your organization specifically needs to be secure.
Think of it like building codes for houses. Following building codes ensures your house won’t collapse or catch fire easily. That’s important. But it doesn’t mean your house is secure against burglars if you’re in a high-crime neighborhood. You might need additional measures that go beyond the basic code requirements.
What "Good Enough" Actually Costs
Last year, I worked with a company that had passed their audit with flying colors. They had all the required controls documented. Their policies looked great. On paper, they were compliant.
But when we did a security assessment, we found critical gaps. Their password policy met the minimum requirements but they had no monitoring for password reuse across systems. They had an incident response plan that satisfied auditors, but nobody had actually practiced it. They encrypted data at rest because the framework required it but sensitive data was regularly shared via unencrypted email.
Everything looked fine until you asked: “Would this actually stop an attack?”
The cost of “good enough” isn’t just the eventual breach though that’s certainly expensive. It’s also the false confidence. Leadership thinks they’re protected because they passed the audit. Resources get allocated elsewhere. Real security concerns get dismissed with “but we’re compliant.”
What Actually Makes You Secure
Real security starts with understanding your environment. What data do you have that someone might want? Who would want it? How would they try to get it?
Then you ask: do our controls actually address those threats? Not “do we have the required controls,” but “do these controls work for our specific situation?”
Sometimes the answer is yes. Frameworks are comprehensive for a reason. But sometimes you need more. Sometimes you need different.
A financial services company faces different threats than a healthcare provider. A small business with 50 employees has different risks than a federal agency with thousands. The frameworks give you a foundation, but you need to build on it based on your reality.
Beyond the Checklist
Here’s what security beyond compliance looks like:
You test your controls regularly. Not just document that they exist but verify they’re working. Run tabletop exercises. Conduct penetration tests. Try to break your own security and see what happens.
You adapt as threats evolve. Compliance requirements change slowly. Threats change fast. Don’t wait for the next framework update to address emerging risks.
You measure effectiveness, not just implementation. It’s not enough to say “we have endpoint protection deployed.” Ask “is our endpoint protection actually detecting and stopping threats?”
You involve people who actually do the work. Your security policies should reflect how your organization actually operates not some idealized version. If nobody follows a policy because it’s impractical, that policy isn’t helping you.
Finding Balance
I’m not saying to ignore compliance. Far from it. Meeting compliance requirements is often legally required and almost always beneficial.
But don’t stop there. Use compliance as your foundation, not your ceiling.
After you implement a control, ask yourself: “Does this actually reduce risk for us or are we just checking a box?” If the answer is just checking a box, think about how you could enhance that control to provide real value.
When you’re planning security investments, start with your risk assessment not just your compliance gaps. Sometimes they’re the same thing. Often they’re not.
The Real Goal
The goal isn’t to pass audits. The goal is to protect your organization’s mission and data. Compliance should support that goal, not replace it.
When you get this right, something interesting happens: you’re both more secure and more compliant. The controls you implement address real threats which makes them more effective. And because they’re effective, you can demonstrate their value to auditors more convincingly.
That’s not “good enough” security. That’s security done right.
And that’s what actually keeps you protected.
Related Posts
Why Risk Management Keeps You Up at Night (And How to Fix It)
Every security leader I talk to says some version of the same thing: “We know we have risks, but where do we even start?”
It’s not that you don’t have security tools. Most organizations have plenty. The problem is figuring out what actually matters. You’re drowning in scan results, compliance requirements, and security alerts but which risks genuinely threaten your organization?
Closing the Gap Between Cybersecurity and Compliance
Too often, organizations treat cybersecurity and compliance as separate problems. The security team focuses on stopping threats. The compliance team focuses on checking boxes. And nobody’s really talking to each other.
The result? You end up with gaps. Your security might be solid, but you can’t prove it when auditors show up. Or you pass your audit, but you’re not actually as protected as you think.