Cybersecurity teams are no longer satisfied with simply passing audits and ticking boxes. Boards, customers, and regulators want proof that security controls are working right now, not just on paper. For years, Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) have relied on annual audits to demonstrate the effectiveness of their controls, but this approach has been exposed as inadequate.
When asked if they can prove their controls are working, CISOs often respond with a variation of “we think so.” However, this is not because they’re careless or evasive. The issue lies in the way control checks are typically performed – like visiting a dentist for a check-up. A patient may claim to brush and floss daily, but an x-ray can reveal the truth.
Similarly, security audits often capture only what was true on the day of inspection, not the current state of affairs. This gap between perceived and actual control effectiveness is a major concern, as highlighted by a 2025 Dell study showing that 69% of IT professionals believe their leadership overestimates the organization’s readiness for a cyber event.
The problem with relying on annual audits or sampling-based assessments is that they can’t keep pace with the ever-changing nature of modern enterprises. New systems go live between audit windows, vendors change configurations, and firewalls may remain open despite being initially closed for integration purposes. Continuous control monitoring is the only way to bridge this gap.
Continuous control monitoring involves testing controls against real-time data on an ongoing basis, ensuring that risk assessments stay current between audits. This approach means asking not “did we pass our last audit?” but “what’s changed in our environment today?” Practically, this means focusing on areas where drift can have significant consequences, such as identity and access management, cloud configurations, vulnerability remediation, and vendor posture.
Incorporating continuous control monitoring doesn’t necessarily mean scrapping existing Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) systems. Instead, it’s about upgrading the input into these systems from manual, point-in-time data to automated, comprehensive facts. This shift in strategy acknowledges that “we think so” is no longer an acceptable answer.
Some may object that continuous monitoring will create more noise, but this is a misconception. When done well, continuous monitoring produces less to chase because every signal is tied to the specific risk it poses. For example, a misconfiguration that doesn’t impact critical business operations can wait, while one that puts mission-critical functions at risk demands immediate attention.
Ultimately, the value of continuous control monitoring lies in providing real-time insights into which controls matter most and where remediation efforts should focus. By adopting this approach, organizations can demonstrate their commitment to security excellence and stay ahead of emerging threats.
Source: SecurityWeek — 2026-09-15