Logo
Cybersecurity

AI Can Speed Up Cybersecurity. It Can't Replace Technical Judgment.

As security teams adopt AI tools, organizations need people who understand the systems behind the alerts, the risks behind the recommendations and the decisions that still require human judgment.

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Okt 14, 2026
AI Can Speed Up Cybersecurity. It Can't Replace Technical Judgment.

AI can summarize a security alert in seconds, help analysts investigate suspicious activity and reduce time spent on repetitive tasks. That is useful, especially for teams dealing with more alerts than they have hours in the day. But faster analysis is only valuable if someone can recognize when the result is wrong.

A recent UK government study offers a reason to look carefully at that balance. Published on 29 September 2026, Cyber Security Skills in the UK Labour Market 2026 found that 57% of businesses had a basic technical cybersecurity skills gap, up from 49% in the previous study. The report also found that 47% of people responsible for cybersecurity in businesses and charities lacked confidence in dealing with cyberattacks and had not outsourced the function. Meanwhile, 70% of cybersecurity businesses said staff were using AI in their daily work, compared with 53% in the previous study. GOV.UK

The findings describe the UK market, but they raise a question relevant to any organization adopting AI: are teams building the expertise needed to use these tools well?

The fundamentals behind the automation

AI-assisted security tools can help with log analysis, alert prioritization, vulnerability assessment and threat investigation. Yet each task depends on underlying knowledge. An analyst needs to understand what normal network activity looks like before identifying an anomaly. A vulnerability tester must understand the system being assessed before deciding whether a finding presents a genuine risk.

Without that foundation, automation can create a new problem: people may become faster at processing recommendations without becoming better at judging them.

Security teams should therefore keep several capabilities central to their development plans:

  • Networking and system fundamentals: Understand traffic flows, operating systems, identity controls and common attack paths.
  • Analytical reasoning: Check evidence, challenge assumptions and distinguish a meaningful signal from a false positive.
  • AI-assisted investigation: Learn how to validate AI-generated findings, recognize uncertainty and document decisions.
  • Risk communication: Explain technical findings in terms of operational impact, business exposure and appropriate next steps.

These capabilities work together. An AI-generated explanation may sound convincing, but confidence in the wording is not evidence that the conclusion is correct.

Measure capability, not tool familiarity

The same distinction should influence cybersecurity training. Completing an AI security course or learning a particular interface can be useful, but neither automatically demonstrates readiness for operational work.

Training exercises should test whether learners can investigate an alert, correlate evidence from different sources, identify what remains unknown and decide when to escalate. When AI tools are involved, assessments should also examine whether learners can verify outputs and explain why they accepted or rejected a recommendation.

Organizations can start by identifying recurring tasks in their security operations, mapping the technical knowledge each task requires and testing those skills through realistic scenarios. This makes training more relevant to the work people will actually perform.

The approach also helps managers identify where AI can assist and where additional supervision remains necessary. Automation should change how a task is performed, not remove accountability for the outcome.

Building the next generation of security professionals

For Indonesia's cybersecurity workforce, the opportunity is to combine stronger technical foundations with practical exposure to AI-enabled security work. Learners need room to experiment, make mistakes safely and explain their decisions. Employers need a clearer picture of what their teams can do beyond the tools they have learned to operate.

ITSEC Cyber & AI Academy can support this development through structured learning in cybersecurity and AI, helping learners build knowledge relevant to professional practice. The objective is to develop people who can use modern tools while retaining the technical judgment needed to question their results.

Ready to develop practical cybersecurity and AI skills? Explore learning opportunities at ITSEC Cyber & AI Academy.

References

  1. UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Cyber security skills in the UK labour market 2026. Published 29 September 2026. Read the official report
Share this post

You may also like

Cybersecurity Job Titles Don't Tell the Whole Story
Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity Job Titles Don't Tell the Whole Story

Two candidates apply for the same security analyst position. Both have relevant qualifications and list incident response among their skills. One can investigate an alert, correlate logs and explain when an incident needs escalation. The other understands the theory but has limited practical experience. On paper, they may look similar. At work, they will need different levels of supervision. This is a challenge for cybersecurity workforce planning. Job titles and qualifications help describe a candidate's background, but employers also need a reliable way to assess practical capability and identify what someone must learn before taking on greater responsibility. ENISA's European Cybersecurity Skills Framework provides a useful reference. Its 12 cybersecurity role profiles describe the responsibilities, skills, knowledge and competencies associated with different professional roles. ENISA is currently revising the framework to reflect developments such as AI and secure digital product lifecycles, with new proficiency levels planned to support clearer skills definitions, career pathways and workforce assessment. These issues will be discussed at its conference on 4–5 November 2026. ENISA [https://www.enisa.europa.eu/events/european-cybersecurity-skills-conference-2026?utm_source=chatgpt.com] The principle applies

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Okt 26, 2026 — 4 minutes read
The Reason Businesses That Skip Digital Forensics Keep Getting Hit Twice
Cybersecurity

The Reason Businesses That Skip Digital Forensics Keep Getting Hit Twice

INTRODUCTION The cybersecurity conversation has long been dominated by prevention. Organizations invest in perimeter defenses, deploy intrusion detection systems, and train employees to recognize phishing attempts. Yet according to IBM's Cost of a Data Breach Report 2024, the average time to identify a breach reached 194 days, nearly half a year of undetected attacker activity inside a network. This statistic reveals a painful truth: prevention alone is not a complete strategy. When an attacker does get through (and modern threat actors have made it a matter of when, not if), organizations need a structured, methodical way to understand exactly what happened, how far the damage extends, and what must change to prevent history from repeating itself. That capability is digital forensics. And the businesses that overlook it are not just leaving questions unanswered. They are setting themselves up to be compromised again. Source: IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2024 [https://newsroom.ibm.com/2024-07-30-ibm-report-escalating-data-breach-disruption-pushes-costs-to-new-highs], Ponemon Institute [https://www.ponemon.org] WHAT IS DIGITAL FORENSICS AND WHY DOES IT MATTER? Digital forensics is the process of collecting, preserving, analyzing,

|
Mei 06, 2026 — 7 minutes read
The Security Gap Indonesian Financial Institutions Can't Afford to Ignore
Cybersecurity

The Security Gap Indonesian Financial Institutions Can't Afford to Ignore

INTRODUCTION Between late 2024 and 2025, Indonesia's Financial Services Authority (OJK) and the Indonesia Anti-Scam Center (IASC) recorded approximately 274,000 fraud cases with total public losses exceeding IDR 6 trillion [https://www.itbeat.id/en/penipuan-berbasis-ai-ancam-sektor-keuangan-indonesia-ojk-catat-kerugian-rp6-triliun/]. That number does not include the operational disruption and reputational fallout from high-profile breaches like the 2024 BI-Fast cyber incident, which prompted OJK to launch emergency inspections of regional banks across the country. Indonesia's financial sector is not fighting a periodic threat. It is fighting one that operates around the clock, and treating security validation as a once-a-year checkbox is one of the most dangerous assumptions a bank or fintech company can make right now. Annual penetration tests are the industry norm, and for a long time they were considered sufficient. The logic was reasonable: test the system before it goes into production, document the findings, remediate the critical ones, and revisit in twelve months. That model made sense when environments were relatively static, when APIs were not the backbone of every product integration, and when attackers were not running automated

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Jun 30, 2026 — 7 minutes read

Receive weekly
updates on new posts

Subscribe