When it comes to security vendor consolidation, Gartner found that 57% of organizations are working with fewer than ten security vendors, utilizing consolidation to cut costs and improve their overall security posture.
But what about the other 43%?
While security vendor consolidation has many advantages — like improved security and operational efficiency as well as cost reduction and improved ROI — however, it’s clear that some myths about consolidation persist. Let’s take a deeper look at three of the most common consolidation myths:
The supremacy of “best of breed” security solutionsLack of flexibility or vendor lock-inIncreased risk of vendor compromiseMyth #1: The supremacy of “best of breed” security solutions
One of the biggest myths of security vendor consolidation is that after consolidating, organizations will lose access to the superior “best of breed” security approach. “Best of breed” refers to purchasing the best product of each type for your infrastructure’s security needs. This could look like using one vendor for firewall protection, another for observability, a third for remediation, and so on.
While it is true that a “best of breed” approach seems to allow organizations to piece together a tech stack of all the best possible products, that’s not the whole story. Organizations with “best of breed” solutions often end up with technology bloat, or a larger tech stack that requires far more maintenance than single-platform or more streamlined offerings. Additionally, there’s more data created from using tools from multiple vendors, which can actually increase an organization’s attack surface and overall risk level.
Some “best of breed” environments a ..
Support the originator by clicking the read the rest link below.
