Whether you are building a security team from scratch, expanding your team or re-allocating resources, you may be wondering what is more effective – a centralized or decentralized security team? Both have their pros and cons and I’ll discuss them and my experience with each in this blog post.
Centralized Security Team
This is probably the most common structure for a security team. In most organizations it makes sense to group all people doing the same thing into a single org. Sales people, IT, Finance, HR, etc. all get grouped into a single org with an executive leader at the top. For the security team it has some distinct advantages.
First, the CISO has direct control over the resources in their org. The reality is, whoever is responsible for the performance reviews and paycheck for the resource, is the one who actually controls that resource. This may sound obvious, but I have seen a lot of weird matrixed, resource sharing organization structures that quite frankly don’t work. There can only be one leader and centralizing the security resources under a single security org provides direct control of how those resources will be used.
Second, it provides a single point of contact or “front door concept” for the rest of the business. If there is an incident, security question, customer inquiry, etc. everyone knows who to reach out to and who the leader is for the security group. This can allow the CISO to more easily track metrics, measure risk and dynamically adjust priorities based on the needs of the business.
However, the downside of a centralized security organization is it often gives the impression that the rest of the business is absolved of their responsibility for security. I have heard the following from various parts of the rest of the business:
Why isn’t security doing that?
What is security doing if I have to do it?
What are you doing with all those resources?
A centralized security team can exacerbate the confusion about who is ultimately responsible and accountable for security within the organization. Or, the security team is held accountable for the security failings of the rest of the business even though they aren’t responsible for doing the things that will make the business more secure. These shortcomings can be overcome with a strong security first culture and when the CISO has strong relationships with the other business leaders in the org.
De-Centralized Security Team
A de-centralized security team can improve on some of the short comings of a centralized security team, but it also has disadvantages.
First, a de-centralized security team allows the business to place resources close to and often within the team that is actually responsible for doing the thing. Think about fixing software vulnerabilities. If the development team building the software product has security expertise on their team, that resource can help prioritize and even fix some of the issues as part of an embedded team member. They can raise the security performance of the whole team. This can be an efficient way to deploy resources on a limited budget.
A de-centralized security team can also spread the cost of security around the org in an equitable way. If each function is required to embed a few security resources then those resources (and headcount) are allocated to that business function.
The downside of a de-centralized team is loss of control. The CISO may still be held accountable for the security of the business, but they may not control the headcount budget for these embedded resources. If the CISO is able to hold onto the headcount budget, that is great, but it doesn’t prevent another issue – having the resources go native.
In my experience, de-centralized teams can often go native. This means the resource fails to prioritize the security asks of the team, fail to hold the team accountable or simply start doing non-security work when asked to do so by the rest of the team. If the CISO doesn’t control the headcount then this is effectively a lost (or non) security resource. Even if they do control the headcount, they may have to constantly battle and remind the embedded resources to prioritize security work. This is a particularly glaring problem when there is a weak security culture within the rest of the business.
What Should I Choose?
There really is no right answer here, but if I had to choose one over the other I would choose to centralize the security team and then spend a large amount of time with the rest of the org to articulate their responsibility for security. In an ideal world, that has a large enough headcount budget, I would choose both. Keep a core centralized team like incident response and GRC, but de-centralize application security engineers and architects within the teams that do development work. The structure of a centralized team and even a de-centralized team will be highly dependent on the needs of the business and who is ultimately responsible security.
However, the reality is your organization probably grew organically with the rest of the company and at some point you may be wondering if your organization structure is best to support the rest of the business. Shifting from centralized to de-centralized (or vice versa) is not impossible, but will require careful thought on how to deploy and control the resources so they can be effective. My suggestion is to start small, experiment and see what works for your org.
370 Security Blog 