FEATURE Cyber security
ADOPTING STRONGER CYBER RESILIENCE
Nathan Charles, Head of Customer Experience at managed IT and cyber security partner OryxAlign, explores why traditional defences are losing ground as attackers adopt AI-enabled methods, and how adapting security strategies helps manufacturers stay resilient
R
ansomware groups and criminal networks now use automated toolkits that move with a speed few organisations can match.
Recent threat analysis shows that most global attacks. Traditional tools built on signature updates or static rules were never designed to match alters code constantly and reshapes its own signals in ways that unsettle tools which depend on stable, recognisable patterns.
high frequency and generate rapid chains of intrusion attempts that leave teams sifting through alerts. This creates a landscape where familiar tools still have value yet organisations need when adversaries no and manufacturing environments, this legacy systems, specialist equipment and networks that were never designed for Recent analysis from security researchers
which reinforces the growing limitations of traditional controls.
The rising impact in the UK shows that organisations reporting a breach commissioned study places the wider economic impact of cyber attacks at around that routine incidents still carry weight for a shift in how attacks unfold. between an initial scan and a serious attempt to breach a system, which forces incidents
28 January 2026 | Automation
to gather pace and draws heavily on older tools struggle to keep their footing and leave practitioners working with less room For manufacturing and engineering teams, this compression of response time can sit alongside production demands and safety considerations, adding further strain during active incidents.
AI reshapes monitoring networks and endpoints for unusual activity, although their outputs often need human These systems can present signals that sit close to normal operational patterns, which makes it harder for practitioners to judge whether a change in behaviour deserves closer attention. misleading indicators that mimic trusted activity or disguise a malicious sequence makes early recognition far harder for automated systems. Without oversight, teams risk either ignoring subtle signals or chasing false leads that drain resources during busy periods. supported by processes that help teams act monitoring that builds a steady picture of system behaviour under routine conditions. Lifecycle planning also supports this
picture by keeping endpoints current and reducing the presence of devices that sit outside managed oversight. These adjustments give teams a steadier view of network activity, even as automated tooling picture in front of them, practitioners can step into developing incidents earlier and guide responses a sharp increase in phishing and social engineering
Keeping pace with evolving attacks although their outputs need human review to avoid misjudging messages that share traits with awareness training and monitoring practices that keep pace with the evolving character of these attacks.
advance, yet organisations can adjust their thinking to meet this change. Traditional tools still hold value, although their protective strength relies and the routine maintenance that keeps systems predictable enough for practitioners to read them maintaining this balance is increasingly part of concern.
OryxAlign
www.oryxalign.com/cyber
automationmagazine.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40
