Logo
Cybersecurity

Stop Treating the Cybersecurity Skills Gap as One Big Gap

The people a SOC needs, the people securing cloud infrastructure and the people testing applications may all work in cybersecurity. Their missing skills aren’t necessarily the same.

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Sep 21, 2026
Stop Treating the Cybersecurity Skills Gap as One Big Gap

“Cybersecurity talent shortage” is a useful phrase until someone has to decide what to do about it.

Hire more people. Train more graduates. Upskill employees.

Fine. Train them in what?

NIST’s latest cybersecurity workforce investment takes that question seriously. On 18 September, it announced more than $1.7 million for nine Regional Alliances and Multistakeholder Partnerships to Stimulate Cybersecurity Education and Workforce Development, or RAMPS, projects across eight U.S. states.

The interesting part isn’t the funding figure. It’s the design.

Each project is expected to connect the specific workforce needs of local businesses and nonprofit organizations with learning objectives based on the NICE Workforce Framework. The projects then translate those requirements into curriculum development, internships, apprenticeships, hands-on projects and other learning opportunities.

In other words, training starts with the capability that’s missing.

One Shortage Can Hide Several Gaps

Consider three organizations hiring cybersecurity talent.

A financial institution may need people who can investigate identity abuse and respond to incidents. A cloud-heavy technology business may be struggling to find people who understand cloud configurations, IAM and security automation. An organization developing digital services may need application security and penetration testing capability.

All three can report a “cybersecurity skills gap.”

Solving them with the same training program would be convenient. It would also miss the point.

A better workforce assessment asks:

  • Which cybersecurity tasks are currently difficult to perform?
  • Which roles depend too heavily on one or two specialists?
  • What capabilities will new technology create demand for?
  • Where do employees have theoretical knowledge but little practical experience?
  • Which skills are needed often enough to justify developing internally?

These questions turn an abstract talent shortage into something that can actually be trained.

Start With the Work, Then Design the Learning

The NICE Framework is useful here because it describes cybersecurity through work roles, tasks, knowledge and skills. That allows employers and educators to discuss capability with more precision than a job title such as “cybersecurity specialist.”

The new RAMPS projects build around that principle. NIST says participating communities bring together employers, educators and economic development organizations so training reflects regional workforce requirements.

There’s a lesson for corporate training too.

Before booking another broad cybersecurity course, map the work. If SOC analysts struggle with cloud investigations, train that gap. If penetration testers need stronger API testing capability, build practice around APIs. If managers struggle during incidents, another technical certification probably won’t rescue the meeting.

Specific gaps deserve specific practice.

Training Should End Closer to the Job

Once the capability is defined, practical learning becomes easier to design.

A learner preparing for SOC work can investigate simulated incidents. Someone developing penetration testing capability can work against realistic applications. Cloud security learners can diagnose misconfigured environments rather than simply identify the correct answer on a slide.

That approach fits the work of ITSEC Cyber & AI Academy, where hands-on environments can be used to connect training objectives with the tasks people will actually perform.

The cybersecurity skills gap is real. Treating it as one enormous empty space makes it harder to solve.

Name the missing capability first. Then train for it.

Explore practical cybersecurity and AI training at ITSEC Cyber & AI Academy.

References: NIST: $1.7 Million for Cybersecurity Workforce Development, 18 September 2026 · NIST NICE · ENISA European Cybersecurity Skills Conference 2026

Share this post

You may also like

Here is How Application Security Works to Protect Your Systems and Data
Cybersecurity

Here is How Application Security Works to Protect Your Systems and Data

INTRODUCTION Nowadays applications are at the center of digital business operations. From mobile banking and e-commerce platforms to internal enterprise systems, organizations rely heavily on applications to serve customers and manage data. However, as applications become more complex and interconnected, they also become one of the most common targets for cyberattacks. In fact, web applications are responsible for a large percentage of data breaches worldwide. The Verizon 2024 Data Breach Investigations Report indicates that cybercriminals frequently exploit web applications as an attack vector. This growing threat raises an important question, “Are your applications truly secure against modern cyber threats?” One of the most effective ways to protect applications is through application security, a proactive approach to identifying and fixing vulnerabilities before attackers can exploit them. Source: verizon.com [https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/dbir/],    A REAL-WORLD EXAMPLE: WHEN AN UNSECURED API EXPOSES MILLIONS Let's look at something that actually happened to Trello in early 2024.In January 2024, a hacker found a weakness in Trello's system, specifically, a part of the app called a REST API. This API had a

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Apr 17, 2026 — 6 minutes read
A SOC Can’t Detect What It Never Learned to See
Cybersecurity

A SOC Can’t Detect What It Never Learned to See

A security alert arrives. An analyst opens it, checks the surrounding activity and begins reconstructing what happened. That sounds like the beginning of detection work. In reality, a considerable amount of work happened earlier. Someone decided which events should be logged, configured the systems to produce them, collected those records centrally and made sure the data contained enough detail to support an investigation. If that work is poor, even an excellent analyst is starting with missing pages. An upcoming ITU cybersecurity exercise in Dushanbe makes this dependency unusually explicit. During the three day program from 21 to 23 September 2026, teams will configure centralized monitoring and telemetry collection before responding to simulated ransomware, data exfiltration, server compromise and command and control traffic. The methodology has a catch: performance against attacks on Day 3 depends on the monitoring participants configured on Day 2. That’s a useful model for SOC training. VISIBILITY IS A SKILL SOC development often concentrates on the visible part of the job: analysing alerts, threat hunting and incident response. Those capabilities

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Sep 17, 2026 — 3 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