Security An oſten-quoted report by IBM estimates that the average


organisation is now juggling 83 cybersecurity tools from 29 different vendors. Tat might sound like strength in numbers, but the reality in many cases is the complete opposite. Tis explains why more and more organisations are exploring


ways to shiſt towards a more integrated approach. Rather than treating security, backup, disaster recovery and


endpoint management as separate disciplines, they’re bringing them together into a single strategy. Tat way, teams can improve visibility, simplify management, while making it easier to detect, respond to and recover from an attack. Te benefits go well beyond reducing the number of products.


Bringing these separate functions together gives security teams a single view of what’s happening, rather than forcing them to switch between multiple management consoles during an incident. It also means security, backup and disaster recovery can work


together. If ransomware is detected, for example, teams can identify clean recovery points more quickly and restore trusted data with greater confidence. Perhaps most importantly, it removes the gaps that can emerge when different tools and teams are operating in isolation.


The role of MSPs and channel partners For many organisations, however, knowing what needs to change is the easy part. Putting it into practice is another matter entirely. Building cyber resilience requires specialist skills, continuous


monitoring and the ability to manage an increasingly complex technology estate. Yet many organisations – particularly SMEs and mid-sized


businesses – simply don’t have those resources in-house. Cybersecurity teams are already stretched, while IT departments are expected to manage everything from cloud infrastructure to compliance and end-user support. Tis is where MSPs and channel partners have become


increasingly important. Rather than simply supplying technology, they’re taking responsibility for keeping customers protected and operational. Tat means continuously monitoring environments, managing


endpoint security and patching, testing backups and responding quickly when incidents occur. In effect, they extend the customer’s security team, providing


capabilities that many organisations no longer have the resources to build and maintain themselves.


Opportunities for MSPs and channel partners But while there is oſten a focus on the technology, one area that is oſten overlooked is training. And it’s an area where MSPs and channel partners can add real value. AI makes phishing emails, fake login pages and business email


compromise increasingly convincing. Te human element has become one of the most targeted parts of an organisation’s security posture. Which is why more and more security leaders believe training


should no longer be a once-a-year compliance exercise. Instead, it needs to be an ongoing managed service, with regular phishing simulations, bite-sized learning and reporting that tracks whether user behaviour is actually improving over time.


www.pcr-online.biz Te reason is simple. Many attacks no longer begin with malware.


Tey begin with someone clicking a link, entering their credentials or approving a request that appears entirely legitimate. Te attack on TfL, for example, has been linked to a group that


is known for favouring such tactics. Te message is clear: everyone involved in keeping people safe needs to have their wits about them at all times.


Practical steps to strengthen cyber resilience So what does this all mean in practice, and what steps could be taken to shore up defences? Organisations need to identify where their resilience gaps lie,


simplify increasingly complex security architectures and prepare for a future in which both attackers and defenders are using AI. Interestingly, these are themes that also run through the open


letter published by the Five Eyes agencies. It talked about three key actions for leaders to take, including ensuring that secure-by- design and secure-by-default become standard practice and not an aspiration. It argued that protection cannot depend on a single solution or


technology and made it clear that as AI systems evolve, ‘new and previously unknown vulnerabilities will emerge, including zero-day vulnerabilities’. “Breaches will occur,” it said. “Preparedness helps you contain


them quickly and prevent escalation into major operational and financial crises.”


The time to act is now Tey went on to highlight a number of practical measures such as reducing your attack surface, accelerating patching processes, addressing legacy systems and preparing for incidents before they happen. In other words: “Test response plans, train and prepare teams, and


assume breaches will occur. Focus on fast containment and recovery.” And since cybercriminals are already using AI to move faster and


more effectively, defenders must also do the same. “Organisations that integrate AI tools into their security


operations can detect vulnerabilities earlier, improve soſtware quality, monitor unusual behaviour, and respond faster to incidents – reducing both the cost and impact of incidents,” said Five Eyes. “Success will not come from having the most tools. It will come


from getting the basics right, acting quickly, and integrating cybersecurity into core business strategy. “Above all, we must act now. Te rapid pace of frontier AI


development means cyber risk assumptions can become outdated in months, not years. We must act before and be prepared to adapt and withstand evolving threats,” it said. To me, the decision by the Five Eyes agencies to publish practical


guidance is significant in itself. Te significance of the Five Eyes guidance extends beyond the


recommendations themselves. It reflects a growing recognition that cyber resilience cannot be delivered by governments or security teams alone. It requires coordinated action across policymakers, technology providers, partners and business leaders. In an AI-driven threat landscape, preparedness is no longer simply a cybersecurity objective; it is a business imperative


July/Augst 2026 | 21


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  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52