Logo
Cybersecurity

“Knows Cybersecurity” Is Too Vague to Be Useful

Two people can understand the same security topic at very different depths. Workforce planning gets better when organizations can describe that difference.

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Okt 07, 2026
“Knows Cybersecurity” Is Too Vague to Be Useful

Imagine two SOC analysts who both list incident response as a skill.

One can follow a documented investigation procedure, collect evidence and escalate a suspicious event. The other can investigate an unfamiliar attack, correlate evidence across systems, challenge the initial hypothesis and guide colleagues through containment.

Both legitimately have incident response skills.

They clearly shouldn’t be described as having the same level of capability.

ENISA is addressing exactly this problem in its ongoing revision of the European Cybersecurity Skills Framework. The current ECSF organizes cybersecurity work into 12 professional role profiles, covering responsibilities, skills, knowledge and relationships between roles. The revised framework will add proficiency levels to support workforce assessment, career development and training pathways. ENISA

That seemingly small addition could change how organizations think about the skills gap.

A Skill List Tells You What. A Level Tells You How Far.

Consider penetration testing.

A beginner might understand reconnaissance, use established testing methods and reproduce common vulnerabilities in a controlled environment.

Someone further along should be able to choose an appropriate methodology, adapt testing to unfamiliar architecture, interpret ambiguous results and explain the business relevance of a finding.

An advanced practitioner may design complex assessments, evaluate unusual attack paths and mentor other testers.

Writing “penetration testing” beside all three names hides most of the useful information.

The same problem appears across cybersecurity roles. Organizations need ways to distinguish between people who can:

  • Explain a concept with guidance
  • Perform a defined task independently
  • Handle unfamiliar or ambiguous situations
  • Design approaches for complex environments
  • Review other practitioners’ work
  • Teach or mentor others

Those distinctions make training needs much easier to see.

The Skills Gap Can Hide Inside the Team

A company may have five incident responders and still have an incident response capability gap.

Perhaps everyone can perform initial triage, while only one person can lead a complex investigation. Maybe several cloud security practitioners understand configuration reviews but nobody can design security architecture across multiple environments.

Headcount alone won’t show that.

ENISA says the ECSF is intended to give employers, professionals, educators and HR teams a shared language for cybersecurity roles and competencies. Its 12 profiles already help define what different cyber professionals do. Adding proficiency levels should make it easier to describe how independently and deeply those tasks can be performed. ENISA

That also gives managers a more useful question than “Do we have this skill?”

Ask: At what level do we have it, and how many people can perform it there?

Training Should Move People Between Levels

Once capability has levels, training can become more precise.

A learner who understands vulnerability assessment but struggles to interpret findings doesn’t need the same program as someone already running assessments independently. One may need structured labs. The other may benefit from complex scenarios with incomplete information and fewer instructions.

That principle fits hands-on development at ITSEC Cyber & AI Academy. Practical environments can help organizations observe how people perform tasks, identify where guidance is still required and create training paths that progressively increase difficulty and independence.

Cybersecurity careers aren’t collections of boxes waiting to be ticked.

A better workforce model asks how well someone can actually do the work.

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

References

  1. ENISA, “European Cybersecurity Skills Framework (ECSF),” updated 28 September 2026
  2. ENISA, “European Cybersecurity Skills Framework,” current framework and revision information, accessed October 2026
  3. ENISA, “European Cybersecurity Skills Conference 2026,” 4–5 November 2026
  4. ENISA, “European Cybersecurity Skills Framework Role Profiles,” 19 September 2022
Share this post

You may also like

What Is Cloud Security? A First Introduction for Modern Enterprises
Cybersecurity

What Is Cloud Security? A First Introduction for Modern Enterprises

INTRODUCTION: CLOUD ADOPTION IS ACCELERATING, SO ARE THE RISKS Cloud computing has been part of enterprise IT for years, but the risk landscape around it is changing faster than ever. As organizations embrace AI, remote work, and digital transformation, cloud environments have become the backbone of business operations and a prime target for attackers. Today, breaches are no longer limited to traditional data centers. Misconfigured cloud resources, stolen credentials, and unmanaged identities are now among the most common root causes of security incidents. This is why understanding what cloud security is and what it is not matters deeply for enterprises today. At its core, cloud security refers to the policies, technologies, configurations, and responsibilities that protect cloud-based systems, data, and services. This concept is inseparable from how cloud computing itself is defined:an on demand, shared,and externally managed computing model, as outlined in the NIST [https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/145/final]Cloud Computing Definition (SP 800-145), where responsibility is inherently distributed between the provider and the user. WHAT IS CLOUD COMPUTING? A SIMPLE ENTERPRISE PERSPECTIVE Cloud computing is not

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Feb 12, 2026 — 7 minutes read
What Makes AI-Powered Penetration Testing Different From Automated Scanners?
Cybersecurity

What Makes AI-Powered Penetration Testing Different From Automated Scanners?

INTRODUCTION How much of what a vulnerability scanner flags every week actually turns out to be real? Research from OWASP puts the false positive rate for common vulnerability types somewhere between 15% and 30%, and separate research from Snyk found that security teams now spend roughly 70% of their time chasing alerts that end up being nothing at all. That gap between what a tool reports and what is actually exploitable is not a minor inconvenience. It is the reason a third of companies surveyed admitted they responded late to a genuine attack because their team was buried in phantom threats instead. ITSEC Asia, Indonesia's leading cybersecurity company, works with organizations across the region that have learned this the hard way, and the question that keeps coming up is simple. If a scanner already checks the boxes, why does AI-powered penetration testing exist at all, and what does it actually do differently? Source: OWASP false positive research via DEV Community [https://dev.to/kuboidsecurelayer/why-automated-vulnerability-scanners-miss-most-real-security-vulnerabilities-2p96] · Snyk: Minimizing False Positives [https://snyk.io/blog/minimizing-false-positives-enhancing-security-efficiency/] THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE: FOLLOWING RULES

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Jul 03, 2026 — 5 minutes read
What Is Continuous Security Validation and Why Does It Matter?
Cybersecurity

What Is Continuous Security Validation and Why Does It Matter?

Cyber threats evolve continuously. New vulnerabilities are discovered every day. Cloud environments change rapidly. Applications are updated frequently. Employees adopt new technologies and attackers constantly search for opportunities to exploit weaknesses. Yet many organizations still rely on periodic security assessments conducted once or twice a year. The challenge is simple: risk does not wait for the next penetration test. This is why more organizations are embracing Continuous Security Validation (CSV) as part of a modern cybersecurity strategy. WHAT IS CONTINUOUS SECURITY VALIDATION? Continuous Security Validation is the practice of continuously evaluating and validating an organization's security posture as environments, threats and attack surfaces evolve. Instead of providing a snapshot at a single point in time, Continuous Security Validation delivers ongoing visibility into security weaknesses and control effectiveness. Its purpose is to answer a critical question: "Are our defenses still working today?" Rather than waiting months between assessments, organizations gain a more dynamic understanding of their exposure. WHY TRADITIONAL ASSESSMENTS ARE NO LONGER ENOUGH Traditional penetration testing remains an important component of cybersecurity. However, most assessments are performed

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Jun 15, 2026 — 4 minutes read

Receive weekly
updates on new posts

Subscribe