Securosis

Research

AI Will Accelerate Your Tech Debt

The Tech Debt Crisis Is Coming Like the American middle class living paycheck to paycheck, organizations near or below the security poverty line are one big incident away from catastrophic bankruptcy. They got here through years of underinvesting in core capabilities and unified architecture, not stupidity, but a long series of decisions that prioritized shipping over sustainability. And now every smaller incident consumes the cycles that could have gone toward paying down that debt, making the hole deeper every time. Tech debt isn’t just a code quality problem. It’s an operational survival problem. The environment is too complex to reason about, too brittle to refactor, and too interconnected to safely improve. Every incident response leaves the org a little more exhausted and a little further behind. We’re rapidly approaching a security crisis that looks like the financial crisis of 2008. Thousands, maybe millions, of companies with business models that cannot afford proper security are about to get breached and go out of business. Like the families with mortgages they couldn’t afford, many of these companies were on borrowed time to begin with. The unsympathetic response will be “they shouldn’t have been in business at all,” but people will still be out of work, investors will still be out of money, and the ripple effects will be real. And AI is only going to make this worse. AI Is Like Tax Cuts Here’s an analogy that’s going to make half of you mad: AI investment right now is like tax cuts. It feels great, it might genuinely juice productivity in the short term, and it absolutely makes the underlying structural debt worse. The cost of writing code is now nearly zero. That sounds incredible until you realize there’s no longer a natural economic brake on deploying new stuff. Every feature request can be shipped. Every half-baked idea becomes a pull request. Consider the monstrosity that is Microsoft Office, thirty years of features added to satisfy the demands of some enterprise customer, perpetuated across the ages, accreted into a product so bloated and bug-ridden that a single email parsing vulnerability can take down a hospital. Nobody planned that.  AI removes that forcing function entirely. The big FAANG companies that are all in on AI are doing quarterly five-figure layoffs. Smaller companies trying to keep up, and desperate to be hip, are going to follow them to their doom. If you can’t reason about your current complexity, you cannot safely have an AI enhance or rewrite large swaths of your codebase. Re-architecture is already off the table because fear of breaking production still reigns supreme. With a fragile architecture, even small changes have big risks. AI doesn’t solve that. AI amplifies it. That’s the trajectory for organizations that don’t address tech debt before going all-in on AI. More code, more attack surface, more complexity, and the same overwhelmed team trying to hold it together. The Iron Bank Will Have Its Due. Tech debt isn’t just a resiliency problem. It’s a security problem, and adversarial AI use is about to make it a catastrophic one. Rich Mogull’s Core Collapse plays out the scenario with uncomfortable clarity. Attackers operate in bounded problem spaces: find a path to an objective, exploit it, move on. AI makes them dramatically more effective at searching that space, with faster exploit development, automated attack graph traversal, and continuous iteration at machine speed. Defenders face the opposite problem. They have to protect everything, all the time, against every possible attacker. That’s a combinatorial complexity problem that AI doesn’t solve. It compounds. The defender’s model that has carried us through the last decade, find bad thing, patch it, stop attacker, starts to collapse when exploit development cycles drop below defensive response cycles. When an attacker’s AI can discover a vulnerability, develop an exploit, and start traversing your environment faster than your team can build, test, and deploy a patch, your detection-and-response playbook becomes a liability. Rich frames this as every day is day zero. Now layer tech debt on top of that picture. If you can’t reason about your own environment, if your dependency graph is a mystery, your authorization model is “we think only admins can do that,” and your data classification is “somewhere in S3,” your ability to use the same technologies to defend are nil. “Couldn’t defend themselves against AI-powered threat actors” wasn’t in the Citrini Research 2028 outlook but it should have been. This is the security catastrophe hiding among the AI hype cycle. Rich’s prescription for organizations below the security poverty line is to outsource: Under-resourced organizations can choose between being repeatedly breached or outsource their security to someone better-resourced. And they won’t really be able to just outsource the security function, they’ll need to outsource their applications and hosting to companies that can defend at scale. I respect Rich enormously, but I think he’s wrong here, and tech debt is exactly why. You cannot outsource technical debt reduction. MSSPs are like credit counselors, useful, well-meaning, and ultimately limited to telling you what you already know deep down but don’t want to face. They can tell you how to stop the bleeding. They cannot unwind a decade of architectural decisions, normalize a fragmented identity model, or create security boundaries where none were designed to exist. The more an organization has underinvested in secure architecture, operational excellence, and data governance, the harder it becomes to even hand it to someone else in a state they can actually defend. At the end of the day, a household drowning in debt has three options: make more, spend less, or declare bankruptcy. Organizations have roughly the same menu. Outsourcing is not any of those three things. And Rich’s supernova metaphor? He’s right that a star collapses and something new forms. But let’s be honest about the timeline. When a star collapses into a supernova, it obliterates everything in that solar system first. Something does eventually form from the wreckage, but we’re talking billions of years and nothing you care about survives

Share:
Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.