Featured

Welcome

Welcome, and thanks for stopping by.

I’m Kevin McLaughlin. I’ve spent decades working in federal law enforcement, corporate IT, and cybersecurity, and I hold a PhD in Information Assurance. These days I run Northspur Cybersecurity, a cybersecurity consulting business. I care about every corner of this field, but the part I’m most passionate about is the people side of it: culture, keeping good talent, and leadership.

That’s mostly what you’ll find here. I write about leading security teams, holding on to good people, security operations, and handling risk in a practical way. There’s also a running series of short Cybersecurity Leadership videos.

I’ve written two books, both published by CRC Press: Cybersecurity Operations and Fusion Centers and Securing Talent: Building and Retaining High-Performance Cybersecurity Teams. You can read about both on my Books page.

If you’d like new posts in your inbox, hit Subscribe in the sidebar. And if you’d like to talk, you can reach me through my Contact page.

Nobody Says “Nice Job” When Nothing Happens

In security, a good day looks like nothing happened, so good work often goes unthanked. A new study from The Hague and ISACA’s 2026 survey point to simple things leaders can do about it.

In security, a good day usually looks like nothing at all. The alert got closed before it turned into anything, the patch went in on time, and the phishing email got reported instead of clicked. Nobody outside the team notices, and a lot of the time nobody inside the team says anything either. We just move on to the next ticket. I’ve come to think that quiet costs us more good people than we realize.

A group in the Netherlands recently looked at what’s connected to stress and to cyber folks thinking about leaving. The Municipality of The Hague teamed up with a firm called MultiTeam Solutions, surveyed 86 security professionals, and also ran three focus groups. One person said something I haven’t been able to shake: “The absence of something bad is not the same as the presence of something good.” I can picture that person. It’s the analyst on night shift who did everything right and went home without anyone noticing.

It’s a small study, so I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, and it only tells us how likely people said they were to leave, not who actually did. But what they found sounds a lot like what I’ve seen over the years. The folks who felt good at their jobs and felt backed by their direct boss were the ones who reported less stress and were less likely to say they’d leave. Both of those come largely down to the leader.

The bigger picture points the same way. ISACA’s 2026 State of Cybersecurity survey, which heard from more than 1,800 security professionals around the world, found that 55 percent of organizations have trouble keeping qualified people. High work stress was the top reason people leave, cited by 52 percent, followed by limited chances for promotion and development at 47 percent. Pay matters, but it isn’t the whole story.

The Hague report suggests a few skills any leader can practice:

  • Name the pressure. Write down the two or three things that keep you and your team under constant strain, and sort out which ones you can actually do something about.
  • Give feedback that looks forward. Pick one decision or moment and coach toward next time. The report says good feedback is genuine, specific, and timely, and that under pressure it’s often delayed, softened, or skipped.
  • Acknowledge progress out loud. Walk back through a recent project, find the good calls nobody mentioned, and then mention them.

Ken Blanchard’s The One Minute Manager is built around catching people doing things right. In security, most of what people do right is invisible, so we have to go looking for it on purpose. This week, find one person whose good work kept something bad from happening, and tell them exactly what they did and why it mattered. It takes a minute, and it might be part of the reason they’re still on your team next year.

Links: the Hague report (https://thehague.com/cybersecurity/sites/thcb_cybersecurity/files/2026-10/Research%20Report_Retaining%20Talent%20is%20a%20Leadership%20Capability_October%202026_0.pdf) and ISACA’s article (https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/newsletters/atisaca/2026/volume-19/isaca-state-of-cybersecurity-report-tracks-ais-growing-influence-on-security-landscape).

Build It, Buy It, or Somewhere in Between: Honest Questions Before You Stand Up a SOC

Thinking about building a security operations center or hiring someone to run one for you? Before you look at a single price quote, here are the plain questions worth sitting down with first.

There’s a question that comes up a lot in our field, and it sounds a lot simpler than it really is. Should we build our own security operations center, or should we pay someone else to run one for us? The honest answer is that it depends, and I know that’s not a very satisfying thing to hear. So instead of leaving it there, I want to talk through what it actually depends on, because those are the conversations that save organizations a lot of money and a lot of heartache down the road.

The first thing I’d ask anyone is what they actually need the SOC to do. A SOC is not a room full of big screens. It’s people, process, and tools working together so that when something goes wrong, somebody notices and does something about it quickly enough to matter. Before you look at a single price quote, write down in plain words what good looks like for you. What hours do you need covered? Which systems matter most? Who gets the call at two in the morning, and what are they allowed to do once they answer it? If you can’t answer those questions yet, you’re not ready to build or buy. You’re ready to have a meeting with the business, and that meeting is worth having first.

The second thing is to be honest about people, because people are the hard part. You can buy tools. You can sign a contract for a platform in an afternoon. What you can’t do in an afternoon is hire, train, and keep a team that knows your environment well enough to tell the difference between normal and trouble. Building in house means recruiting, scheduling around the clock, covering vacations and sick days, and giving folks a reason to stay once they’ve learned your business. Overnight shifts wear people down over time, and good analysts get offers. If you can’t staff it and keep it staffed, the most beautiful SOC design on paper turns into empty chairs. I’d rather see a leader admit that up front than find it out the hard way a year later.

Buying has real advantages. A good managed provider can give you coverage much faster than you could build it, and the right partner brings people who’ve seen a lot of different situations. But there’s one thing you can never hand off, and that’s accountability. The provider can watch your environment, but your organization still owns the risk and still owns the decisions. So when you talk to a potential partner, ask the plain questions. What will you actually do for us, and what will you only tell us about? How do you escalate, and to whom? Who do I call when something goes sideways on a holiday weekend? How will you learn how our business works? And if we part ways someday, what do we get to keep, such as our data, our detection rules, and our documentation? A partner who answers those questions clearly is worth a lot. A partner who gets vague is telling you something too.

A lot of organizations end up somewhere in between, and there’s nothing wrong with that. You might keep the knowledge of the business and the big decisions inside your own walls, and let a partner carry the overnight watch or some of the specialized work. That can be a very sensible arrangement. The thing to watch in a blended model is the seams. Things fall through the cracks at the handoffs, between your team and theirs, between one shift and the next. Talk through those handoffs before you need them, and then practice them. A tabletop exercise on a quiet afternoon is a lot cheaper than learning where the gaps are during a real incident.

Whichever way you go, think carefully about how you’ll know it’s working. It’s easy to count alerts, tickets, and hours. Those numbers have their place, but they don’t tell you much on their own. The better questions are whether the right people found out about the right things quickly, whether the team acted, and whether leadership got reporting that helped them make a decision. Good reporting should help the organization get a little safer every month, and own it when it didn’t.

The last piece of advice is to start smaller than your ambition. It’s far better to watch a handful of truly important things well than to watch everything poorly. Get the basics working, build trust with the business, and grow from there. A SOC that earns its keep on a few critical systems will have a much easier time making the case for the next step.

There’s no single right answer to build or buy. The right answer is the one that fits your risk, your budget, and your people, and that you can live with at two in the morning when the phone rings. I spent a good deal of time on these same questions when I wrote Cybersecurity Operations and Fusion Centers: A Comprehensive Guide to SOC and TIC Strategy. It walks through choosing between building and buying, picking a partner, building the team, and running the day to day operations and reporting. If you’re wrestling with this decision right now, it may save you a few headaches. You can find it on Amazon.

#22 Cybersecurity Leadership Shorts Endpoint Protection

Created with notebooklm. Author wrote the script.

#21 Cybersecurity Leadership Shorts Log Mgt and Reducing the Noise Floor

My script. Produced using Notebooklm.

20 Cybersecurity Shorts Security Operation Centers

Produced using Notebooklm and my script.

#19 Cybersecurity Leadership Shorts Managing the stress during a critical incident

Produced using Notebooklm and my script.

18 Cybersecurity Leadership Shorts – Certifications are not the finish line

Produced using Notebooklm and my script.

#16 Cybersecurity Leadership Shorts – Leadership Skills

Produced using Notebooklm and my script.