Incident responders: Build or buy?

There is far more to security management than technology. In fact, one could argue that the human element is more important in a field where intuition is just as valuable as knowledge of tech. In the world of security management I have not seen a more hotly debated non-technical issue than the figurative “build or buy” when it comes to incident responder employees. The polarized camps are the obvious:

  • Hire for experience.
  • In this model the desirable candidate is a mid-career or senior level, experienced incident responder. The pros and cons are debatable:Hire for ability
    • More expensive
    • Potentially set in ways
    • Can hit the ground running
    • Low management overhead
  • In this model, a highly motivated but less experienced engineer is hired and molded into as close to what the enterprise requires as they can get. Using this methodology the caveats and benefits are a bit different, as it is a longer term strategy.
    • Less expensive
    • “Blank Slate”
    • Requires more training and attention
    • Initially less efficient
    • More unknowns due to lack of experience
    • Can potentially become exactly what is required
    • May leave after a few years

In my stints managing and being involved with hiring, I have found that it is a difficult task to find a qualified, senior level engineer or incident responder that has the personality traits conducive to melding seamlessly into an existing environment. That is not so say it isn’t possible, but soft skills are a lost art in technology, and especially so in development and security. In my travels, sitting on hiring committees and writing job descriptions, I have found that the middle ground is the key. Mid-career, still hungry incident responders that have a budding amount of intuition have been the blue chips in the job searches and hires I have been involved with. They tend to have the fundamentals and a formed gut instinct that makes them incredibly valuable and at the same time, very open to mentorship. Now, the down side is that 40% of the time they’re going to move on just when they’re really useful, but that 60% that stick around a lot longer? They are often the framework that thinks outside the box and keeps the team fresh.