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

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

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 [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cyber-security-skills-in-the-uk-labour-market-2026/cyber-security-skills-in-the-uk-labour-market-2026?trk=public_post_comment-text] The findings describe the UK market, but they raise a question relevant to any organization adopting AI: are teams building the

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Okt 14, 2026 — 3 minutes read
Cybersecurity Training Needs More Room for Failure
Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity Training Needs More Room for Failure

A cybersecurity exercise where everything goes according to plan is wonderfully reassuring. It may also be slightly suspicious. Real incidents rarely arrive with tidy instructions. An alert can look harmless until it isn’t. Evidence can contradict itself. Someone makes an assumption, spends 20 minutes following it and discovers they were looking in entirely the wrong place. That messy part of cybersecurity deserves a bigger role in how people are trained. NIST’s National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) is putting that idea directly into its workforce discussion. Its upcoming September session on preparing students for cyber careers focuses on realism-based training, including how controlled failure can become useful workforce data rather than something educators simply mark wrong. That’s a useful distinction. A score tells you whether someone found the answer. Watching how they reached it tells you much more. A WRONG ANSWER CAN REVEAL THE REAL SKILLS GAP Imagine two SOC trainees investigating the same suspicious activity. Both eventually identify the threat. One gets there systematically. The other clicks through five theories, misses a

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Sep 04, 2026 — 3 minutes read
Cybersecurity Roadmap: Why It Is Essential for Managing Enterprise Risk Today
Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity Roadmap: Why It Is Essential for Managing Enterprise Risk Today

INTRODUCTION Many organizations invest heavily in security tools, yet still struggle to explain their overall security posture. This is not always due to lack of technology, but often due to lack of direction. As digital environments grow more complex, security decisions are made across cloud platforms, remote endpoints, third-party integrations, and increasingly, AI-driven systems. According to findings highlighted in the World Economic Forum [https://www.weforum.org/], cyber risk today is less about a single vulnerability and more about how fragmented security efforts accumulate across interconnected environments. Without a clear plan, security initiatives tend to be reactive. Controls are added in response to incidents, audits, or vendor recommendations, rather than as part of a coordinated strategy. This is where a Cybersecurity Roadmap becomes critical. A roadmap provides a structured way to define priorities, sequence improvements, and align security with business risk. Industry guidance from NIST Cybersecurity Framework [https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework] emphasizes that this approach enables organizations to move from isolated security actions toward a cohesive and resilient defense posture. WHAT IS A CYBERSECURITY ROADMAP? A Cybersecurity Roadmap is a strategic,

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Jan 22, 2026 — 5 minutes read

Receive weekly
updates on new posts

Subscribe