Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 10:26 pm
TL;DR: Most programmes have unseen coverage gaps, and a webinar on building a world-class security team maps eleven defensive positions to the gaps and attacks they are meant to stop, according to Netwrix. The practical lesson is that layered defense fails when roles, ownership, and control coverage are treated as abstract ideals instead of an operating model.
NHIMG editorial — here’s why we think this discussion matters
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams identify hidden gaps in layered defense?
A: Start by tracing a realistic attack path and assigning each step to a specific control owner.
Q: Why do mature security programmes still leave exposed gaps?
A: Because control maturity is often measured by tool presence, not by end-to-end coverage.
Practitioner guidance
- Map defensive ownership by attack path List the identity, endpoint, network, detection, and response controls that each team owns, then trace how an attacker would move between them.
- Document handoffs between control layers Write down the exact trigger that moves an incident from prevention to detection to response, including which team is notified and what evidence they receive.
- Review identity coverage as part of defense design Check whether human IAM, NHI governance, and privileged access all have explicit monitoring and revocation paths.
What to expect at the briefing
Netwrix's full webinar covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The eleven-position security team model and how each role maps to a specific defensive function
- The webinar’s discussion of which positions are most commonly left exposed in real programmes
- The team-based breakdown of gaps closed by layered defense across prevention, detection, and response
- The speaker-led framing that links the model to practical security programme design
👉 Watch Netwrix's webinar on building a world-class security team →
World-class security team design: are your controls actually covered?
Explore further
25/06/2026 10:58 pm
Control coverage fails first as a governance problem, not a tooling problem. Most security programmes do not collapse because they lack a product. They collapse because nobody can prove which defensive function owns which part of the attack path, especially where identity, monitoring, and response overlap. The practical conclusion is that coverage maps matter as much as control deployment.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 85% of organisations lack full visibility into third-party vendors connected via OAuth apps, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- That same research found that only 1.5 out of 10 organisations are highly confident in their ability to secure NHIs, compared to nearly 1 in 4 for securing human identities.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when a security control fails between teams?
A: Accountability should sit with the owner of the control seam, not be pushed into a shared-responsibility blur. Organisations need a named incident owner, explicit escalation criteria, and an evidence trail that shows when the failure became visible.
👉 Read our full editorial: Security team gaps and layered defense: what practitioners should notice
