"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." - Yogi Berra
In the complex world of cybersecurity, boards and executives crave a simple answer to a difficult question: "How secure are we?" This desire has given rise to an industry-wide focus on maturity models. Frameworks like the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) Tiers or CMMC levels provide a comforting, color-coded scorecard. They create the illusion of control, allowing a CISO to stand before the board and proudly declare, "We have advanced from a '2' to a '3'."
This is the theory. And in theory, a higher maturity score means a more secure organization.
But as Yogi Berra wisely noted, theory and practice can be two very different things. An exclusive focus on documented maturity can create a dangerous blind spot. Conversely, a program that ignores mature processes in favor of pure, reactive defense is building on a foundation of sand.
True cyber resilience isn't about choosing between maturity and effectiveness. It's about mastering both. Falling short on either side leads to two common, and equally dangerous, failure states: The Maturity Trap and The Hero Trap.
The First Failure: The 'Maturity Trap'
This is what happens when theory outpaces practice. The 'Maturity Trap' snares organizations focused on looking good on paper. They chase high scores on frameworks, but the activities required to raise a score are often disconnected from the activities that actually stop an adversary.
This trap manifests in several ways:
- The Tool Trap: Millions are spent on "best-in-class" tools to check a box, but the tools are poorly configured or the alerts are ignored. The presence of the tool grants maturity points, but its ineffective implementation provides no real security.
- The Policy Paradox: Hundreds of beautiful security policies sit on a shelf to satisfy auditors, but they aren't part of the daily culture. The organization has mature policies but immature practices.
This is a hollow shell—a program that is theoretically mature but practically useless in a real fight.
The Second Failure: The 'Hero Trap'
This is the other side of the coin, where practice outpaces theory. Many organizations are highly effective at stopping attacks for one simple reason: they have a handful of brilliant, tireless security analysts. These are the "security heroes."
These individuals have the intuition, talent, and sheer grit to hunt down threats and keep the organization safe through what seems like sheer force of will. The organization’s defenses are effective, but this effectiveness is brittle. What happens when these heroes burn out, go on vacation, or leave for a better offer?
The security posture collapses. Because their knowledge was never institutionalized, there are no documented playbooks, no repeatable processes, and no cross-training to sustain their efforts. This is the 'Hero Trap': a program that is highly effective today, but utterly fragile tomorrow.
Uniting the Two: The Goal of Sustainable Resilience
The ultimate goal is to build a program that is both effective in practice and mature in process. These two elements should exist in a virtuous cycle, not in opposition.
This means using real-world performance metrics to drive the maturity of the program.
- Core performance metrics like Mean Time to Detect (MTTD), Contain (MTTC), and Remediate (MTTR) are no longer just grades on effectiveness; they are data points that inform process improvement.
- A Red Team exercise isn't just a test; it's a requirements-gathering session for your maturity roadmap.
When an ethical hacker gets in (testing effectiveness), the response isn't just to patch the hole. It's to ask: "What process failed us? How can we create a new, repeatable control (maturity) to ensure this type of failure never happens again, no matter who is on the job?"
This is how heroics are converted into a sustainable program. This is how a theoretical policy is proven to be a practical reality.
Conclusion: A Two-Sided Coin
Chasing a high score on a maturity model without proof of effectiveness is a waste of resources. Relying on the heroics of individuals without building a mature program to sustain them is a reckless gamble.
Leaders need to change the conversation to demand both. Start by asking your own teams, "What is our evidence of effectiveness?" and "How are we capturing those lessons to make our program more repeatable and mature?"
This extends to your third-party assessors. Challenge them to move beyond a simple audit of controls. The critical question to ask them is, "How are you measuring not just our documented maturity, but our proven, practical effectiveness?"
A security program that only shows you one side of the coin is giving you half the value and twice the risk. True resilience is found in the unity of theory and practice—a defense that is both proven in a fight and built to last.