Security Maturity Is Not a Guess: Why a Baseline Comes First

Security maturity should not be a guessing game. Without a clear baseline, prioritization becomes reactive, driven by the loudest alert, the newest requirement, or the most confident opinion in the room. Instead of noise, a baseline gives leaders a shared reference point to answer a practical question: what matters most right now. 

For public sector security leaders, that clarity is even harder to come by. Limited staffing, fixed budgets, audit pressure, and legacy environments make it impossible to tackle everything at once. And it's a constraint that's widespread. ISACA recently found that 55 percent of cybersecurity teams are understaffed and 65 percent of organizations continue to carry unfilled cybersecurity positions.  

So, while a baseline does not solve every problem, it does give leaders something they often lack: a defensible starting point for decisions, sequencing, and investment. 

Why Prioritization Breaks Down Without a Shared Reference Point 

Most security programs are not weak, they are uneven. Some areas mature quickly, while others lag quietly in the background. Over time, confidence builds around controls that have existed the longest or passed the last audit, even as the environment changes. 

Without an objective view, this assumed maturity often constrains prioritization, turning into a blend of compliance timing, tool driven urgency, and whichever risk is easiest to explain. That misalignment shows up in outcomes.  

Gartner found that only 14 percent of security and risk management leaders can effectively secure organizational data assets while also enabling the business to use data to achieve its objectives.  

The cycle breaks when leaders pause long enough to take an honest look at today’s posture across the areas that matter most. 

Six Domains That Shape Security Maturity  

While coverage does not need to be exhaustive, it should span the lifecycle of security operations to highlight uneven maturity and blind spots: 

1. Governance and Risk: Are decisions intentional and risk based, or inherited and undocumented?
2. Incident Response and Recovery: Is the organization prepared to execute, not just document?
3. Identity and Access: Are access boundaries and reviews keeping pace with change?
4. Data and Systems Protection: Is protection aligned to where sensitive data and critical systems actually live today?
5. Threat Detection and Monitoring: Is visibility actionable, or buried under noise?
6. Application Security: Are findings translated into remediation and risk decisions consistently? 

Taken together, these domains provide a realistic view of how the program operates day to day. 

From Baseline to Better Decisions 

What a meaningful security program baseline review should not produce is a vanity score. It should create a small, actionable set of outputs leaders can use immediately: 

• A one-page maturity snapshot across core domains 
• A prioritized list of gaps ranked by impact and urgency
• Clear separation between quick wins and longer-term initiatives
• Dependencies and sequencing so teams do not fix things out of order
• A leadership-ready summary that explains why the priorities are the priorities 

This is where maturity stops being abstract and starts driving real decisions. Decisions on prioritization of what to fix first and defensible actions that tie gaps to practical signals, such as:  

• Business or mission impact, what breaks if this fails 
• Exposure and exploitability, how likely it is to be abused
• Control weakness, whether the issue is systemic or isolated
• Effort to remediate, quick win versus heavy lift 

The goal is a baseline that turns opinions and outputs into informed, prioritized plans. Seen properly, a baseline is a directional gut check. It validates assumptions, surfaces blind spots, and clarifies where deeper work is worth the effort. More importantly, it helps security leaders ask better questions: 

• Where will incremental improvements have the greatest operational impact?
• Which gaps need deeper investigation versus tactical adjustment?
• How should time, budget, and staffing be allocated?
• What indicators will show maturity is improving over time 

The value is not the score. The value is the clarity that follows. 

Why This Matters in the Real World 

Even good teams struggle to prioritize when they are buried in volume, often resulting in critical vulnerabilities remaining exposed. A 2025 report from Seemplicity found that 91 percent of organizations experience delays in vulnerability remediation. Gaining clear insight on what domains need fixing first can mean the difference in vulnerability remedy vs vulnerability exploitation. 

As well, a baseline should highlight prioritization gaps between what teams believe works and what they operationalize. Seemplicity also noted that fewer than 1 in 5 organizations use structured prioritization models, even though nearly all rank them among the most effective.  

Giving the team a consistent, objective reference point is what allows security leaders to translate signal into action and, ultimately, chaos into strategy. 

You Cannot Improve What You Have Not Grounded 

The strongest security programs are not the ones making the biggest investments. They are the ones moving with purpose, guided by an accurate understanding of where they stand today. 

If you want a fast, practical snapshot of your current posture, our brief Gut Check Security Review provides a clear view of strengths, gaps, and priority areas, along with expert guidance on what to tackle next. No strings attached. 

Don't miss another article. Subscribe to our blog now.