Here’s a conversation that happens in boardrooms everywhere:
“Why do we need a separate cybersecurity team? Our IT department handles all our technology. Can’t they just… handle security too?”
It sounds reasonable. IT manages your systems. Security protects your systems. Same systems, right? Why pay for two teams when one could do both?
Because asking your IT team to handle cybersecurity is like asking your building maintenance crew to also serve as your security guards. Sure, they both work in the building. They both care about keeping things running. But they have fundamentally different, and often conflicting, goals.
Let me explain why the separation between IT and cybersecurity isn’t bureaucratic bloat or empire building. It’s actually one of the smartest structural decisions you can make.
IT Is About Uptime. Security Is About Keeping the Bad Guys Out.
At their core, IT and cybersecurity have different missions:
IT’s job is to keep things running. Uptime. Availability. Making sure employees can work, customers can access services, and business operations don’t stop. When something breaks, IT fixes it, fast. Their success is measured in system availability, response times, and user satisfaction.
Cybersecurity’s job is to keep threats out. Protection. Defense. Making sure attackers can’t compromise systems, steal data, or disrupt operations. Their success is measured in prevented breaches, detected threats, and minimized risk.
These sound compatible until you realize they’re often in direct conflict.
IT wants to say “yes” to user requests. Security often has to say “no.”
IT prioritizes accessibility. Security prioritizes restriction.
IT optimizes for convenience. Security optimizes for protection.
IT measures success by how smoothly things work. Security measures success by how hard things are to break.
When you force the same team to balance both priorities, one always loses. And in most organizations, security loses, because downtime is visible and immediate, while security risks are invisible and theoretical (until they’re not).
The Conflict in Action
Let me show you what this looks like in practice.
Scenario 1: The VPN Performance Issue
IT gets complaints that the VPN is slow. It’s impacting remote workers. Productivity is suffering. The obvious solution: disable some of the security protocols that are causing latency. Make a few configuration changes. Problem solved. Users are happy.
But those security protocols exist for a reason: they prevent man-in-the-middle attacks and ensure traffic is encrypted. Disabling them creates vulnerability. The network is faster but less secure.
If IT owns both functions, they’re making a risk decision without necessarily having the expertise or mandate to do so. Their priority is solving the immediate performance problem, not evaluating long-term security implications.
If IT and security are separate, there’s a conversation: “We can improve VPN performance, but it means reducing some encryption protections. Here’s the risk. Here’s the benefit. Let’s decide together.”
Scenario 2: The Software Update
A critical software update is available. Security wants to deploy it immediately; it fixes bugs and patches vulnerabilities.
IT wants to test it first. Verify it’s compatible with other tools and confirm it doesn’t break anything. IT wants to reduce downtime that could cost the business money.
Testing takes time. The security team is pushing for deployment because the longer it takes to patch, the greater the company’s exposure to risk.
If IT and security are separate, there’s a negotiation about acceptable testing timelines and risk tolerance. Maybe the update is staged and deployed to non-critical systems first, with security monitoring to catch issues before a broad rollout.
Scenario 3: The Cloud Migration
IT is migrating systems to the cloud. They’re focused on functionality: making sure applications work, data transfers correctly, and users can access what they need. The migration needs to happen on schedule and on budget.
Security is concerned about configurations. Are storage buckets properly secured? Are access controls correctly implemented? Is data encrypted in transit and at rest? Are logging and monitoring configured correctly?
These security considerations slow down the migration. They add complexity. They might require reimagining some approaches.
If IT owns both, the pressure to hit the migration deadline often means security configurations get treated as “phase two” items that can be addressed later. The migration succeeds on time, but the cloud environment is less secure than it should be.
If IT and security are separate, security requirements are built into the migration plan from the start. It might take longer, but it’s done right.
The Expertise Gap
Beyond conflicting priorities, there’s a fundamental expertise difference.
IT professionals are experts in making technology work. They understand systems administration, network architecture, database management, and application deployment. They’re great at troubleshooting, optimizing performance, and solving operational problems.
Cybersecurity professionals are experts in how technology breaks. They understand attack vectors, threat modeling, vulnerability analysis, and incident response. They think like adversaries. They know how systems get compromised.
These are different skill sets that require different training and mindsets.
You wouldn’t expect a heart surgeon also to be an infectious disease specialist just because they both work with the human body. They require different expertise even though they operate in related domains.
Similarly, the person who’s excellent at configuring servers for optimal performance isn’t necessarily the person who’s excellent at identifying how those servers could be exploited. Both are valuable. Both are necessary. But they’re not interchangeable.
When you force IT to handle security without specialized training, you get:
- Security measures that are technically implemented but contextually wrong. The firewall rules are configured, but they don’t actually address relevant threats.
- Compliance-focused security that checks boxes without reducing risk. “We have antivirus installed,” without considering whether it’s actually effective against current threats.
- Reactive security that only responds to known threats. Without expertise in emerging attack techniques, the security posture is always behind the curve.
- Security debt that accumulates over time. Small decisions that prioritize convenience over protection compound into significant vulnerabilities.
The Accountability Problem
When IT owns both operations and security, accountability gets muddy.
If a system goes down because of a security incident, who’s responsible? The IT team that didn’t implement adequate protections? The IT team that prioritized uptime over security? The IT team that made risk decisions without full security expertise?
When everyone’s responsible for everything, no one’s truly accountable for anything.
Separate functions create clear accountability:
IT is accountable for operational performance. If systems are slow, unreliable, or unavailable, that’s an IT problem. They own uptime and functionality.
Security is accountable for protection. If systems are compromised, data is stolen, or attacks succeed, that’s a security problem. They own risk management and threat defense.
Management is accountable for balancing the two. When IT and security have competing priorities, leadership makes the call based on risk tolerance and business needs.
This creates healthy tension. Neither function can simply override the other. Decisions require discussion, consideration of tradeoffs, and explicit risk acceptance by leadership.
Management’s Role: Risk vs. Reward
This is where the separation becomes really valuable for leadership.
When IT handles both operations and security, management gets one perspective: “We need to do X for operational reasons, and we think the security implications are acceptable.”
When IT and security are separate, management gets two perspectives:
IT says: “Here’s what we need to do for operational efficiency. Here’s the business benefit. Here’s why users need this.”
Security says: “Here’s the risk that creates. Here’s what could go wrong. Here’s what it would cost us if it does.”
Now management can make an informed decision.
Maybe the operational benefit outweighs the security risk. Maybe it doesn’t. Maybe there’s a middle ground that achieves most of the benefit while minimizing the risk. But at least the decision is being made deliberately, with full understanding of the tradeoffs.
This is how risk management is supposed to work.
Consider a real-world example:
The business wants to enable file sharing with external partners.
IT perspective: “We can set this up easily. Users need it for collaboration. It’ll improve productivity and make the partnership more effective. We’ll use a reputable cloud service.”
Security perspective: “External file sharing creates data exfiltration risk. We need to implement controls: restrictions on what can be shared, data loss prevention, monitoring of shared files, and user training on what shouldn’t be shared externally.”
Management decision: “The business benefit is significant. We’ll enable file sharing with the security controls in place. We accept the residual risk that, even with controls in place, sensitive data might be accidentally shared. Security team: implement monitoring to detect incidents quickly. IT team: deploy the solution with security requirements built in.”
That’s a mature risk decision. It considers business needs, operational requirements, and security implications, and makes an explicit choice about acceptable risk.
If IT owned both functions, the decision would probably be: “We’ll enable file sharing and add some basic controls.” The security considerations might be addressed superficially, and management wouldn’t have full visibility into the actual risk they’re accepting.
When the Separation Works Best
The separation between IT and security is most effective when:
- Both teams understand they’re on the same side. They’re not adversaries. They’re partners with different expertise working toward the same goal: enabling the business to operate safely.
- There’s a clear escalation path for conflicts. When IT and security disagree, there’s a defined process for getting management involved to make the final call.
- Leadership values both perspectives. If management always sides with IT because uptime is more visible than security, the separation is pointless. Both voices need to be heard and respected.
- Communication is consistent. Regular meetings between IT and security ensure they’re aligned on priorities, aware of each other’s concerns, and able to collaborate on solutions.
- Responsibilities are clearly defined. There’s no ambiguity about who owns what. IT owns operations. Security owns risk management. Management owns strategic decisions.
- Both teams have adequate resources. An understaffed security team that can’t keep up with IT’s pace becomes a bottleneck rather than a partner. Both functions need sufficient resources to do their jobs.
The Penetration Testing Connection
This is where penetration testing fits into the IT vs. security separation.
Penetration testing is fundamentally a security function, not an IT function. It’s about identifying vulnerabilities, assessing attack paths, and evaluating risk. But it has massive implications for IT operations.
When pen testing is conducted properly with separated IT and security functions:
Security owns the engagement. They scope the testing, work with the pen testing provider, and own the findings. They understand the security context and can properly assess risk.
IT is involved in remediation. They understand the operational implications of fixing vulnerabilities. They can evaluate the practical feasibility of recommendations and implement solutions that don’t break production systems.
Management makes risk decisions. When findings require significant operational changes, budget, or downtime, leadership decides which vulnerabilities to fix immediately, which to defer, and which risks to accept.
This three-way conversation produces better outcomes than if IT owned the entire process and made both security and operational decisions in isolation.
The Bad Version: Security Theater
Here’s what happens when organizations try to avoid the IT-security separation but want to appear security-conscious:
They create a “security person” who reports to IT leadership. This person is supposed to handle security while IT continues focusing on operations. Problem solved, right?
Not quite.
This usually creates security theater, the appearance of security without the substance.
The security person doesn’t have real authority. When they identify risks, IT leadership decides whether to address them based on operational priorities. Security concerns that create operational friction get deprioritized or ignored.
The security person becomes a box-checker. They make sure antivirus is installed, firewalls are in place, and patches are eventually deployed. But they don’t have the authority or support to push back on risky operational decisions.
Leadership sees “we have a security person” and assumes security is handled. Meanwhile, real security risks accumulate because the security function doesn’t have equal standing with operations.
This is worse than having IT openly own both functions, because it creates false confidence. At least if IT openly owns security, leadership knows operational priorities might override security considerations. With security theater, leadership thinks security is properly managed when it’s actually subordinated to operations.
The Alternative: Integrated But Separate
Some organizations try to solve the conflict by making IT and security fully independent with no coordination. Security makes decisions without considering operational impact. IT implements solutions without security input. They work in silos.
This doesn’t work either.
The goal isn’t complete independence. It’s integrated but has separate functions:
Separate in authority and accountability. Neither function reports to the other. Both have direct lines to leadership. Both have authority in their domains.
Integrated in operations. They work together constantly. Security is involved in IT projects from the start. IT is involved in security initiatives from the planning phase. They collaborate rather than compete.
Think of it like product development and quality assurance in manufacturing. They’re separate functions with different goals: product ships products, QA prevents defects. They’re not adversaries, but they provide necessary tension. The best products come from close collaboration between teams that have different mandates.
IT and security should work the same way.
The Bottom Line
IT and cybersecurity should be separate because they have fundamentally different missions that create natural tension.
IT prioritizes uptime, availability, and operational efficiency. Security prioritizes protection, risk management, and threat defense. Both are essential. Both are valuable. And they’re often in conflict.
When the same team owns both functions, operational priorities almost always win, because uptime is immediate and visible while security risks are theoretical and invisible until it’s too late.
The separation creates healthy tension and ensures both perspectives are heard.
Management then takes reports from both teams and determines the best course of action based on risk vs. reward. Sometimes operational needs win. Sometimes security requirements win. Often, there’s a middle ground that achieves business goals while managing risk acceptably.
This is how mature organizations make technology decisions. Not by forcing one team to balance competing priorities they can’t fully manage. Not by letting functions work in silos. But by creating integrated but separate teams that collaborate while maintaining different mandates and accountability.
Your IT team should focus on keeping systems running. Your security team should focus on preventing threats. Your leadership should focus on balancing the two based on business objectives and risk tolerance.
That’s not bureaucracy. That’s smart organizational design.
MainNerve: Security Expertise That Complements Your IT Team
MainNerve works with organizations where IT and security functions are properly separated, and those where they’re still figuring it out.
Our penetration testing services support both teams: providing IT with actionable remediation guidance they can actually implement, and giving security teams the detailed risk analysis they need to make informed recommendations to leadership.
We understand that IT priorities and security priorities aren’t always aligned. Our reports are structured to help management make informed risk decisions by clearly articulating both the security implications and the operational realities of our findings.
Whether your organization has a dedicated security team or your IT team is handling both functions, we provide the external expertise that helps everyone make better decisions.
Ready to see how professional penetration testing supports better security AND operational decision-making? Contact MainNerve to discuss how we can help your organization balance uptime with protection.
Because the goal isn’t choosing between IT efficiency and security, it’s achieving both through informed risk management.
