Nikoloz K.
@nikolozk.bsky.social
Founder of CybersecTools.com (3,000+ security tools) | Fractional CISO for B2B companies | ex-Mambu, ex-EclecticIQ, ex-JDE
Ask your SOC team what they actually use vs what procurement bought them.
The silence will tell you everything.
The silence will tell you everything.
November 11, 2025 at 1:56 PM
Ask your SOC team what they actually use vs what procurement bought them.
The silence will tell you everything.
The silence will tell you everything.
The gap between what impresses the board and what helps your on-call engineer?
That's where your real security risk lives.
Until users control budgets or buyers become users, nothing changes.
That's where your real security risk lives.
Until users control budgets or buyers become users, nothing changes.
November 11, 2025 at 1:56 PM
The gap between what impresses the board and what helps your on-call engineer?
That's where your real security risk lives.
Until users control budgets or buyers become users, nothing changes.
That's where your real security risk lives.
Until users control budgets or buyers become users, nothing changes.
I've watched security teams quietly replace $500K "enterprise platforms" with Python scripts and open-source tools.
Not because they're rebels.
Because they need something that actually works when there's a breach.
Not because they're rebels.
Because they need something that actually works when there's a breach.
November 11, 2025 at 1:56 PM
I've watched security teams quietly replace $500K "enterprise platforms" with Python scripts and open-source tools.
Not because they're rebels.
Because they need something that actually works when there's a breach.
Not because they're rebels.
Because they need something that actually works when there's a breach.
This isn't a bug. It's the business model.
Vendors optimize for:
* PowerPoint, not operations
* RFP checkboxes, not usability
* Executive fear, not practitioner needs
They win deals by impressing people who'll never use the product.
Vendors optimize for:
* PowerPoint, not operations
* RFP checkboxes, not usability
* Executive fear, not practitioner needs
They win deals by impressing people who'll never use the product.
November 11, 2025 at 1:55 PM
This isn't a bug. It's the business model.
Vendors optimize for:
* PowerPoint, not operations
* RFP checkboxes, not usability
* Executive fear, not practitioner needs
They win deals by impressing people who'll never use the product.
Vendors optimize for:
* PowerPoint, not operations
* RFP checkboxes, not usability
* Executive fear, not practitioner needs
They win deals by impressing people who'll never use the product.
The C-suite sees a gorgeous dashboard. "AI-powered detection!" "100% coverage!" They're sold.
Your SOC analyst? Buried in false positives at 2 AM, manually correlating data because nothing integrates.
Same product. Different reality.
Your SOC analyst? Buried in false positives at 2 AM, manually correlating data because nothing integrates.
Same product. Different reality.
November 11, 2025 at 1:55 PM
The C-suite sees a gorgeous dashboard. "AI-powered detection!" "100% coverage!" They're sold.
Your SOC analyst? Buried in false positives at 2 AM, manually correlating data because nothing integrates.
Same product. Different reality.
Your SOC analyst? Buried in false positives at 2 AM, manually correlating data because nothing integrates.
Same product. Different reality.
3. @Trellix Security Platform
AI-powered platform for detection, response, and threat protection
4. @Checkmarx One
AppSec platform with SAST, SCA, IaC, ASPM, and AI-powered remediation
The CybersecTools directory now has 3,154 security tools: cybersectools.com
AI-powered platform for detection, response, and threat protection
4. @Checkmarx One
AppSec platform with SAST, SCA, IaC, ASPM, and AI-powered remediation
The CybersecTools directory now has 3,154 security tools: cybersectools.com
November 7, 2025 at 1:58 PM
3. @Trellix Security Platform
AI-powered platform for detection, response, and threat protection
4. @Checkmarx One
AppSec platform with SAST, SCA, IaC, ASPM, and AI-powered remediation
The CybersecTools directory now has 3,154 security tools: cybersectools.com
AI-powered platform for detection, response, and threat protection
4. @Checkmarx One
AppSec platform with SAST, SCA, IaC, ASPM, and AI-powered remediation
The CybersecTools directory now has 3,154 security tools: cybersectools.com
The uncomfortable truth:
Your incident response plan is incomplete if it doesn't specify WHO communicates WHAT to WHOM and WHEN.
Not just how fast engineers click buttons.
Most companies learn this lesson after their first major incident costs them a customer.
Smart companies learn it before.
Your incident response plan is incomplete if it doesn't specify WHO communicates WHAT to WHOM and WHEN.
Not just how fast engineers click buttons.
Most companies learn this lesson after their first major incident costs them a customer.
Smart companies learn it before.
November 6, 2025 at 1:55 PM
The uncomfortable truth:
Your incident response plan is incomplete if it doesn't specify WHO communicates WHAT to WHOM and WHEN.
Not just how fast engineers click buttons.
Most companies learn this lesson after their first major incident costs them a customer.
Smart companies learn it before.
Your incident response plan is incomplete if it doesn't specify WHO communicates WHAT to WHOM and WHEN.
Not just how fast engineers click buttons.
Most companies learn this lesson after their first major incident costs them a customer.
Smart companies learn it before.
Why communication trumps speed:
Silence creates panic. Speculation fills information voids. Trust evaporates in minutes, not hours.
A 2-hour incident with no updates feels worse than a 10-hour incident with transparent communication every 30 minutes.
Silence creates panic. Speculation fills information voids. Trust evaporates in minutes, not hours.
A 2-hour incident with no updates feels worse than a 10-hour incident with transparent communication every 30 minutes.
November 6, 2025 at 1:55 PM
Why communication trumps speed:
Silence creates panic. Speculation fills information voids. Trust evaporates in minutes, not hours.
A 2-hour incident with no updates feels worse than a 10-hour incident with transparent communication every 30 minutes.
Silence creates panic. Speculation fills information voids. Trust evaporates in minutes, not hours.
A 2-hour incident with no updates feels worse than a 10-hour incident with transparent communication every 30 minutes.
Strategic teams: → Clear stakeholder updates every 30 minutes → Transparent impact assessment → Proactive customer outreach → Technical excellence AND communication
Result: Incident takes 8 hours, customers become advocates.
Result: Incident takes 8 hours, customers become advocates.
November 6, 2025 at 1:55 PM
Strategic teams: → Clear stakeholder updates every 30 minutes → Transparent impact assessment → Proactive customer outreach → Technical excellence AND communication
Result: Incident takes 8 hours, customers become advocates.
Result: Incident takes 8 hours, customers become advocates.
Here's what I see in real incidents:
Technical-focused teams: → War rooms with engineers → Rapid triage and patches → Speed metrics everywhere → Customer communication as afterthought
Result: Incident resolved in 4 hours, customers lost forever.
Technical-focused teams: → War rooms with engineers → Rapid triage and patches → Speed metrics everywhere → Customer communication as afterthought
Result: Incident resolved in 4 hours, customers lost forever.
November 6, 2025 at 1:55 PM
Here's what I see in real incidents:
Technical-focused teams: → War rooms with engineers → Rapid triage and patches → Speed metrics everywhere → Customer communication as afterthought
Result: Incident resolved in 4 hours, customers lost forever.
Technical-focused teams: → War rooms with engineers → Rapid triage and patches → Speed metrics everywhere → Customer communication as afterthought
Result: Incident resolved in 4 hours, customers lost forever.
It's not how fast you fix the problem.
It's how well you communicate while fixing it.
Your customers can't see your technical response. They only experience your communication response.
It's how well you communicate while fixing it.
Your customers can't see your technical response. They only experience your communication response.
November 6, 2025 at 1:55 PM
It's not how fast you fix the problem.
It's how well you communicate while fixing it.
Your customers can't see your technical response. They only experience your communication response.
It's how well you communicate while fixing it.
Your customers can't see your technical response. They only experience your communication response.
You're not choosing a vendor.
You're choosing your security future.
Treat it like the strategic decision it actually is.
Or realize it 18 months from now when it's too late to change course.
You're choosing your security future.
Treat it like the strategic decision it actually is.
Or realize it 18 months from now when it's too late to change course.
November 4, 2025 at 1:55 PM
You're not choosing a vendor.
You're choosing your security future.
Treat it like the strategic decision it actually is.
Or realize it 18 months from now when it's too late to change course.
You're choosing your security future.
Treat it like the strategic decision it actually is.
Or realize it 18 months from now when it's too late to change course.
The brutal truth:
Companies that win enterprise customers don't have the "best" security stack.
They have the stack that makes strategic sense for where they're going.
Not where they are. Where they're going.
Companies that win enterprise customers don't have the "best" security stack.
They have the stack that makes strategic sense for where they're going.
Not where they are. Where they're going.
November 4, 2025 at 1:55 PM
The brutal truth:
Companies that win enterprise customers don't have the "best" security stack.
They have the stack that makes strategic sense for where they're going.
Not where they are. Where they're going.
Companies that win enterprise customers don't have the "best" security stack.
They have the stack that makes strategic sense for where they're going.
Not where they are. Where they're going.
What actually matters before you evaluate a single feature:
* How does this affect our deal velocity?
* What does implementation timeline mean for growth targets?
* How will this constrain our next funding round?
* What's the real TCO including opportunity cost?
* How does this affect our deal velocity?
* What does implementation timeline mean for growth targets?
* How will this constrain our next funding round?
* What's the real TCO including opportunity cost?
November 4, 2025 at 1:55 PM
What actually matters before you evaluate a single feature:
* How does this affect our deal velocity?
* What does implementation timeline mean for growth targets?
* How will this constrain our next funding round?
* What's the real TCO including opportunity cost?
* How does this affect our deal velocity?
* What does implementation timeline mean for growth targets?
* How will this constrain our next funding round?
* What's the real TCO including opportunity cost?
Why this keeps happening:
Technical teams evaluate what they can measure.
Business impact is hard to quantify. Feature lists are easy.
So they optimize for demos instead of outcomes.
They buy tools that look perfect in POCs but break execution in production.
Technical teams evaluate what they can measure.
Business impact is hard to quantify. Feature lists are easy.
So they optimize for demos instead of outcomes.
They buy tools that look perfect in POCs but break execution in production.
November 4, 2025 at 1:55 PM
Why this keeps happening:
Technical teams evaluate what they can measure.
Business impact is hard to quantify. Feature lists are easy.
So they optimize for demos instead of outcomes.
They buy tools that look perfect in POCs but break execution in production.
Technical teams evaluate what they can measure.
Business impact is hard to quantify. Feature lists are easy.
So they optimize for demos instead of outcomes.
They buy tools that look perfect in POCs but break execution in production.
Real examples I've seen:
The "best-of-breed" tool that created vendor sprawl → blocked SOC 2 audit
The "enterprise platform" with 18-month implementation → lost 2 major deals
The "perfect API" choice → sabotaged M&A integration strategy
The "best-of-breed" tool that created vendor sprawl → blocked SOC 2 audit
The "enterprise platform" with 18-month implementation → lost 2 major deals
The "perfect API" choice → sabotaged M&A integration strategy
November 4, 2025 at 1:55 PM
Real examples I've seen:
The "best-of-breed" tool that created vendor sprawl → blocked SOC 2 audit
The "enterprise platform" with 18-month implementation → lost 2 major deals
The "perfect API" choice → sabotaged M&A integration strategy
The "best-of-breed" tool that created vendor sprawl → blocked SOC 2 audit
The "enterprise platform" with 18-month implementation → lost 2 major deals
The "perfect API" choice → sabotaged M&A integration strategy
The Strategic Reality nobody evaluates:
→ This vendor shapes your architecture for 3-5 years
→ Their roadmap determines your compliance timeline
→ Their integrations dictate your stack evolution
→ Their support quality impacts incident response
→ Their market position affects customer trust
→ This vendor shapes your architecture for 3-5 years
→ Their roadmap determines your compliance timeline
→ Their integrations dictate your stack evolution
→ Their support quality impacts incident response
→ Their market position affects customer trust
November 4, 2025 at 1:55 PM
The Strategic Reality nobody evaluates:
→ This vendor shapes your architecture for 3-5 years
→ Their roadmap determines your compliance timeline
→ Their integrations dictate your stack evolution
→ Their support quality impacts incident response
→ Their market position affects customer trust
→ This vendor shapes your architecture for 3-5 years
→ Their roadmap determines your compliance timeline
→ Their integrations dictate your stack evolution
→ Their support quality impacts incident response
→ Their market position affects customer trust
The Technical Theater companies perform:
→ Engineering runs exhaustive POCs
→ Security builds requirement matrices
→ Procurement negotiates per-seat pricing
→ Everyone checks boxes
Nobody asks: "How does this affect our €20M enterprise deal closing in Q3?"
→ Engineering runs exhaustive POCs
→ Security builds requirement matrices
→ Procurement negotiates per-seat pricing
→ Everyone checks boxes
Nobody asks: "How does this affect our €20M enterprise deal closing in Q3?"
November 4, 2025 at 1:55 PM
The Technical Theater companies perform:
→ Engineering runs exhaustive POCs
→ Security builds requirement matrices
→ Procurement negotiates per-seat pricing
→ Everyone checks boxes
Nobody asks: "How does this affect our €20M enterprise deal closing in Q3?"
→ Engineering runs exhaustive POCs
→ Security builds requirement matrices
→ Procurement negotiates per-seat pricing
→ Everyone checks boxes
Nobody asks: "How does this affect our €20M enterprise deal closing in Q3?"
Here's what's actually happening:
You're not buying a security tool.
You're making a multi-year commitment that will either accelerate or sabotage your growth.
That "technical decision" just locked in your entire security architecture for 3-5 years.
You're not buying a security tool.
You're making a multi-year commitment that will either accelerate or sabotage your growth.
That "technical decision" just locked in your entire security architecture for 3-5 years.
November 4, 2025 at 1:55 PM
Here's what's actually happening:
You're not buying a security tool.
You're making a multi-year commitment that will either accelerate or sabotage your growth.
That "technical decision" just locked in your entire security architecture for 3-5 years.
You're not buying a security tool.
You're making a multi-year commitment that will either accelerate or sabotage your growth.
That "technical decision" just locked in your entire security architecture for 3-5 years.
After reviewing 150+ B2B security programs, I see the same pattern.
Companies spend 200+ hours on technical POCs.
They evaluate API docs, feature matrices, and integration capabilities.
They think they're being thorough.
They're optimizing for the wrong variables.
Companies spend 200+ hours on technical POCs.
They evaluate API docs, feature matrices, and integration capabilities.
They think they're being thorough.
They're optimizing for the wrong variables.
November 4, 2025 at 1:55 PM
After reviewing 150+ B2B security programs, I see the same pattern.
Companies spend 200+ hours on technical POCs.
They evaluate API docs, feature matrices, and integration capabilities.
They think they're being thorough.
They're optimizing for the wrong variables.
Companies spend 200+ hours on technical POCs.
They evaluate API docs, feature matrices, and integration capabilities.
They think they're being thorough.
They're optimizing for the wrong variables.