THE SECURITY TOOLS GAP
Modern security tooling is designed to perform — just not in reality.
Most tools are optimized for synthetic benchmarks, curated datasets, and evaluation environments that look nothing like the systems they claim to protect.
They succeed where it’s safe to succeed.
They fail when it matters.
TOOLS PERFORM TO BENCHMARKS
Security vendors don’t need their tools to catch real-world failures.
They need them to generate:
- – Passes on synthetic test suites
- – “Coverage” graphs
- – Demo-friendly alerts
- – Clean dashboards
They don’t sell outcomes.
They sell outputs.
What they measure is not what breaks.
WHY BENCHMARKS DRIFTED
Building good benchmarks is hard.
There were real efforts to create measurable, representative, reproducible vulnerability sets.
But accurate benchmarks are slow to build, difficult to validate, and painful to scale.
So the industry defaulted to simpler ones:
– Synthetic examples
– Shallow logic
– Predictable structure
Not because of malice. Because that was survivable.
But when real benchmarks started surfacing poor performance vendors didn't fix their tools. They requested anonymity.
They didn’t correct the results.A benchmark that shows you’re irrelevant is a benchmark you can’t allow.
They hid from them.
The truth didn’t kill the tools.
The tools killed the truth.
COMPLEXITY AS A FEATURE
As performance fails, tools add features:
More signals. More dashboards. More knobs.
But that complexity isn’t solving the problem.
It’s what can be imagined. What can be built. What can be sold.
Most can’t see the deeper failure.
They treat what’s visible, not what’s critical.
If your tool needs five dashboards to explain one result, it isn’t working — it's performing.
STRUCTURAL LIMITS
Security methods don’t fail by accident. They fail by design — shaped by structural constraints and incentives.
| Tool Type | Optimized For | Fails When… |
|---|---|---|
| Static Analysis | Pattern matching on curated tests | Code deviates from benchmark corpus |
| Black-box Fuzzers | Blind mutation and surface feedback | Fail to adapt and reach deeper paths |
| Code Review | Structural correctness, human plausibility | Behavior hides in execution state |
| Pentesting | Episodic, scoped wins | Issues fall outside engagement boundaries |
| Bug Bounties | Incentivized disclosures | Deep bugs lack appeal or take time |
Coverage isn’t pressure.
Black-box fuzzers throw inputs. They don’t adapt.
These tools don't go quiet. They just get vague.
Reviews, pentests, and bounties are adversarial — but they are slow and don’t scale.
BLAME, PUSHED DOWNSTREAM
Because tools promise scale and imply safety, blame fills the gap they leave behind.
- - Developers are blamed for ignoring alerts
- - AppSec is blamed for slow and inaccurate triage
- - Security leads are blamed for risks they couldn’t observe
Overwhelm turns to drift—then gets reframed as a “talent shortage”.
And the fix?
- - More certifications
- - More “cybersecurity diplomas”
- - More underpaid juniors chasing broken metrics
There is no talent shortage.
There are broken tools and their empty promises.
WHAT THIS IS
This isn’t a sales pitch.
It’s a structural diagnosis.
Security tools aren’t underpowered.
They’re optimized — just for the wrong environment.
And they’ve built an ecosystem that profits from compounding dysfunction.
If you’ve lived inside this theater, you don’t need next-gen anything.⟶ The Exit PlanYou need a way out.
Newsletter
We publish only when there is something to say.