Patching the People Problem: Conflict Resolution inVulnerability Management Programs
Introduction
Vulnerability management is not just a technical exercise ofscanning and patching systems — it’s a cross-departmental effort thatrequires coordinated action across security teams, IT operations, development,compliance, and more. A vulnerability management program can have the besttools and processes, but if departments operate in silos or clash overpriorities, critical weaknesses may go unaddressed. Ineffective teamcollaboration can directly hinder timely remediation of security issues (Vulnerability Management: 8 Key Challenges — Don’t Ignore!).Successful programs recognize that resolving interdepartmentalconflicts and fostering cooperation are as essential as technology.
Recent industry research underscores the link between teamalignment and vulnerability management outcomes. A 2022 PonemonInstitute survey found that “at the heart of having a successfulvulnerability management program is alignment between DevSecOps and thedevelopment team” — meaning that only by synchronizing the goals ofdevelopment, security, and operations can organizations achieve both innovationand security in product delivery (If time is money, vulnerability backlog is really expensive |Ponemon-Sullivan Privacy Report). Yet, many firms struggle with thisalignment. Only 55% of organizations in that study said their development,product security, and compliance teams were well-aligned in understanding eachother’s roles and the overall security posture. The remaining 45% face gapsbetween departments that can lead to miscommunication, delays, and unresolvedvulnerabilities. This article examines how interdepartmentalcoordination — and specifically, effective conflict resolution amongthese groups — contributes to the success of vulnerability management programs.We will explore common points of friction between teams, real-world casestudies illustrating the impact, and best practices to build a collaborativeculture for managing vulnerabilities.
The Importance of Interdepartmental Coordination
https://services.pitt.edu/TDClient/33/Portal/KB/ArticleDet?ID=559&utm_source
No single team can shoulder the burden of enterprisevulnerability management alone. Security analysts may identify vulnerabilities,but it takes cross-functional cooperation to assess and fixthem. If IT operations, developers, and compliance officers aren’t on the samepage, even a well-identified risk can languish without remediation. Researchfrom industry experts confirms that silos undermine security efforts. For example,one study notes that “siloed thinking, where departments operate inisolation and withhold information, obstructs vulnerability managementmaturity” (Nucleus Blog | 6 Behaviors That Hinder Vulnerability ManagementMaturity). When vulnerability information isn’t freely shared acrossdepartments, organizations struggle to get a complete view of their riskexposure. In contrast, open communication and data exchange between teamsenables more informed decision-making and faster action to mitigate threats.
Interdepartmental coordination means bringingtogether stakeholders from various functions — security, IT ops, development,compliance, and even legal and HR — to approach vulnerability management with aunified strategy. Each department offers a unique perspective and expertise:developers understand the application code, operations teams know theproduction environment and uptime requirements, compliance and risk officersknow regulatory or policy obligations, and the security team understands thethreat landscape. When these groups collaborate instead of working atcross-purposes, vulnerabilities can be prioritized and resolved in a way thatbalances security with business needs. As one cybersecurity professional putit, “silos breed vulnerabilities”, whereas breaking down barriersleads to more comprehensive security and fewer mistakes (Why Collaboration Is Essential for Cybersecurity Teams).
Conversely, lack of coordination often means critical issues“fall through the cracks.” A patch might be deemed low-impact by developers butconsidered high-priority by security, and without a forum for discussion, itmay not get the attention it needs. Or the security team might roll out ascanning tool that floods developers with false positives, creating frustrationand a tendency to ignore alerts. Regular cross-functional meetings,clear communication channels, and shared visibility of risk can prevent thesescenarios. Even simple practices like having a central dashboard for alloutstanding vulnerabilities — visible to security, dev, and ops — and assigningclear ownership for remediation can make a huge difference (Vulnerability Management: 8 Key Challenges — Don’t Ignore!).Collaboration ensures that when a severe vulnerability emerges, everyone fromcompliance managers to system admins can coordinate a response quickly, withoutdebates over responsibilities or surprise last-minute objections.
Common Sources of Conflict Between Teams
Understanding where interdepartmental conflicts typicallyarise is the first step to resolving them. In the context of vulnerabilitymanagement, several classic friction points tend to emerge:
These conflict areas are interrelated. Divergent goals andpoor communication exacerbate role confusion; unclear accountability feedscultural mistrust, and so on. The good news is that with the right strategies,organizations can turn these conflicts into collaboration opportunities.Rather than seeing security, ops, and dev as opposing forces, leading companiesintegrate them into a cohesive team for vulnerability management. The nextsections look at how to achieve this through conflict resolution and processimprovements and examine instances where organizations either failed orsucceeded based on their interdepartmental dynamics.
Conflict Resolution Strategies for EffectiveVulnerability Management
Bringing different departments into alignment requiresboth cultural shifts and structured processes for conflictresolution. Below are several proven strategies and best practices thatorganizations use to defuse tensions and promote cross-team cooperation invulnerability management:
1. Establish Open Communication Channels: Communicationis the cornerstone of conflict resolution. Teams should have regular forums todiscuss security issues — whether it’s a weekly security stand-up withdevelopers and ops or a dedicated Slack channel for vulnerability remediationwhere everyone can ask questions in real time. The key is to replace sporadic,ad-hoc communication (or one-way emailing of reports) with continuous dialogue.When cybersecurity and IT teams talk frequently and transparently about theirobjectives and constraints, they can find common ground more easily. Forexample, if the operations team explains that a critical patch will require anhour of downtime, the security team might work with them to schedule it in amaintenance window that minimizes business impact, rather than simply demandingit be done “now.” Likewise, if security explains the rationale and severitybehind a vulnerability, developers are more likely to take it seriously.Regular cross-functional meetings and updates ensure everyone is aware ofcurrent risks, remediation status, and any roadblocks, so no one is caught offguard. As one LinkedIn cybersecurity forum advised, “communication iskey… it is imperative that a great relationship exists” betweensecurity and IT (How to Resolve Conflicts between Cybersecurity and IT Teams).Open communication builds mutual understanding — a critical first step inconflict resolution.
2. Align on Shared Goals and Metrics: Oneeffective conflict-resolution approach is to remind all parties of the commongoals they share and to create joint metrics that reinforcecooperation. At the highest level, every department ultimately serves theorganization’s business objectives and risk management goals. Security,development, and operations all succeed when the company avoids breaches anddelivers value to customers. Framing vulnerability management in terms ofbusiness risk can unite teams under a common purpose. For instance, instead ofa security-vs-IT mindset, leaders can emphasize that “we are allresponsible for protecting customer data and service availability.” Thisphilosophy is embodied in the DevSecOps movement, which posits that “everyoneis responsible for security” as part of their role (Building a DevSecOps Culture — from a Technical Perspective —Tech at GSA).
DevSecOps emphasizes integrating security into the entiresoftware lifecycle, as illustrated in this infinity-loop diagram:
By merging Development (Dev), Security (Sec), andOperations (Ops) into a continuous process, DevSecOps breaks down silos andfosters shared responsibility. This cultural shift reinforces that alldepartments must work in tandem to achieve both rapid innovation and robustsecurity.
In practical terms, this might mean setting a shared targetlike reducing the average time to remediate critical vulnerabilities across allteams, or having zero critical issues open past a certain deadline, and tyingthose metrics to performance goals for both security and IT groups. Whensuccess is measured collaboratively, it incentivizes teams to help each otherrather than work at cross purposes. Senior management should clearly articulatethat security and uptime are not opposing targets but dual mandates for theorganization. With a unified vision (often documented in security policies orcharters), disagreements can be navigated by asking “What solution bestsupports our overall mission and risk tolerance?” and not “Which team wins thisargument?”.
3. Define Roles, Responsibilities, and Processes: Muchconflict can be preempted by a well-defined vulnerability managementprocess that all departments have agreed to. A formal plan or playbookshould spell out how vulnerabilities are tracked, who must take action, andwithin what timeframe, depending on severity. For example, the plan mightstate: “For any critical vulnerability, the security team will immediatelynotify the affected system owner and the IT operations lead. Theapplication/infrastructure owner is responsible for implementing the fix orworkaround, with oversight from the security team. A fix must be applied within48 hours for critical issues (per policy X), unless an extension is approved bythe CISO and risk committee.” By having these expectations codified, there isless room for finger-pointing because everyone knows “who does what”.Engaging all stakeholders in drafting this process is important — eachdepartment can voice concerns and agree to the expectations. The U.S. CISArecommends that stakeholders be given the opportunity to “address theirconcerns” about how vulnerability remediation might disrupt operationsand come to mutual agreement on remediation time frames (CRR Supplemental Resource Guide, Volume 4: VulnerabilityManagement). Taking into account the needs of different groups whendefining the process ensures it’s realistic and that buy-in is obtained. Onceroles and timelines are clear, if a conflict arises (say a patch can’t beapplied in time due to a business dependency), there is an establishedescalation path to resolve it (e.g., a risk acceptance process throughcompliance and security leadership). Clear responsibility also means issues areless likely to fall through the cracks, reducing future conflict about “why wasn’tthis fixed?” — everyone knows where the buck stops.
4. Implement Risk-Based Prioritization: Prioritizationis a powerful tool for conflict resolution because it forces agreement on whatmatters most. Not all vulnerabilities are created equal — a trivial flaw on aninternal test server is very different from a critical flaw on a customer-facingsystem. Security and IT teams should collaborate to perform risk assessment forvulnerabilities, combining technical severity with business impact. By jointlyagreeing on which vulnerabilities are the highest priority, teams can focustheir efforts and avoid fights over less important issues. A collaborative riskscoring system might consider factors like whether the vulnerable system isinternet-exposed, what data it holds, and whether exploits exist in the wild (Vulnerability Management: 8 Key Challenges — Don’t Ignore!).This helps in negotiating timelines — for example, IT might say “We can’t patcheverything in 48 hours, but we will commit to patch these top 5 critical vulnsin that time, while lower-severity ones will be scheduled in the next quarterlyupdate.” Security can accept that plan if it’s based on sound risk logic. Thisis far more constructive than a blanket demand to fix “all findings”immediately, which often leads to pushback. Industry best practices alsoemphasize focusing on high-risk vulnerabilities first to make effective use ofresources. When both security and development teams see that prioritization isfair and fact-driven, it builds trust — developers see that security isn’tcrying wolf about minor issues, and security sees that developers are willingto act swiftly on truly critical items. In sum, risk-based prioritization turnspotential conflicts into cooperative decision-making about how to allocateeffort for maximum security benefit.
5. Foster a Collaborative Culture (Empathy and Trust): Beyondpolicies and meetings, the organizational culture plays a hugerole in whether conflicts are escalated or amicably resolved. A culture ofcollaboration means encouraging empathy — each team should take time tounderstand the pressures and challenges the others face. Security staff canbenefit from understanding software release cycles and the intricacies oflegacy systems that make instant patching hard. Developers and system admins,on the other hand, should learn about the latest threats and why seeminglyminor vulnerabilities can have serious consequences. Some companies facilitatejob-shadowing or “brown bag” knowledge sessions where, say, the security teampresents an overview of recent attacks exploiting unpatched flaws, and the ITteam might present how a complex update is planned. This mutual education helpseach side “live in each other’s shoes for a while,” as one security expertsuggested, to build appreciation for different concerns (How to Resolve Conflicts between Cybersecurity and IT Teams).Leadership should model respect between departments — e.g., no blaming Ops fora breach in front of others, but rather analyzing what in the process allowedit to happen. Celebrating joint successes can reinforce trust: if a criticalvulnerability is rapidly fixed through teamwork, recognize all thecontributors (developers, testers, security analysts, etc.). Another aspect ofcollaborative culture is making it safe to raise issues. If adeveloper spots a security gap, they should feel comfortable reporting itwithout fear of blame; similarly, if security notices a team falling behind onpatches, the tone should be supportive (“how can we help?”) rather thanpunitive. A “blameless post-mortem” approach to securityincidents can be very effective — focus on learning and improving the processrather than assigning personal fault. Research indicates that organizationswith a non-punitive, transparent culture have more mature vulnerability management,because issues are surfaced and addressed quickly instead of hidden (Nucleus Blog | 6 Behaviors That Hinder Vulnerability ManagementMaturity). In short, emphasizing partnership over policing transformsconflict into cooperation. When teams trust that others are on their side, theyare more willing to compromise and coordinate in service of the greater good.
6. Leverage Integrated Tools and Platforms: Whileculture and process are fundamental, technology can also assist in conflictreduction by creating shared workspaces and clarity.Integrated vulnerability management platforms that all stakeholders can accesshelp break down information silos. Instead of separate lists and spreadsheetsmaintained by each team, a unified system (often a dashboard or ticketing integration)provides a single source of truth on vulnerability status. This transparencymeans everyone sees the same data — for instance, how many open vulnerabilitieseach application has, which ones are past due, and who is assigned. It’s easierto hold each other accountable constructively when the facts are visible toall. Some platforms allow commenting or collaboration directly on vulnerabilitytickets, so a security analyst and a developer can discuss a finding andresolve questions in one place. Automation can notify allrelevant parties when a new critical issue is found, ensuring no one is leftout of the loop. This addresses the communication gap, like in the Equifaxscenario by automatically routing alerts to the right owners. Additionally,tools can enforce workflows that match the agreed process (e.g., if a patchdeadline is missed, it escalates to management). The goal of using technologyis not to replace communication but to facilitate it and keep everyonecoordinated. Many organizations are adopting such tools precisely because theyencourage cross-team collaboration and faster remediation. In one survey, 45%of companies said a top reason for implementing DevSecOps (which often includesintegrated toolchains) was to improve collaboration between development,security, and ops and to reduce time to patch vulnerabilities (If time is money, vulnerability backlog is really expensive |Ponemon-Sullivan Privacy Report). When information flows seamlessly andtasks are tracked transparently, there is simply less room for conflict born ofconfusion.
By applying these strategies — from better communication tocultural change to smart use of tools — companies can significantly reduceinterdepartmental friction. It’s worth noting that conflict resolution in thiscontext is not about eliminating all disagreements. A healthy debate about howto tackle a vulnerability can lead to creative solutions. The aim is to managedisagreements constructively and keep everyone moving toward the shared goal ofrisk reduction. Next, we’ll look at some real-world examples thathighlight how interdepartmental dynamics can make or break a vulnerabilitymanagement program.
Case Studies: Lessons from the Field
Nothing illustrates the impact of interdepartmentalcoordination better than real incidents and outcomes. Here we examine twoscenarios — one where lack of team coordination led to failure, and anotherwhere effective collaboration paid off:
Case Study 1: Equifax Breach (2017) — A CommunicationBreakdown
One of the most infamous data breaches in history, the Equifax incident,serves as a cautionary tale of how interdepartmental lapses canundermine vulnerability management. Equifax was hacked via a known ApacheStruts vulnerability that had a patch available months before. The companyactually had a process: their Global Threat and Vulnerability Management (GTVM)team did scan for the vulnerability and even sent out an urgent email notice tohundreds of employees telling them to patch the affected systems (The Equifax Effect: Explaining the biggest security disaster ofthe 21st century | ITPro). So, what went wrong? The notification neverreached the administrators of one critical web application (the consumerdispute portal) that used the vulnerable software. Due to incomplete assetinventories and siloed records, the GTVM team was unaware that thisapplication was running Apache Struts — and ironically, theapplication owner was not on the email distribution list and didn’t know hissystem was at risk. The patch was thus never applied on that server, whichhackers then exploited to steal the personal data of 147 million people. Post-breachinvestigations revealed multiple failures in coordination: no one had a fullpicture of all systems and owners, security alerts were blasted out withoutconfirmation of receipt, and no follow-up ensured that operations teamsactually implemented the patches. In other words, each group did part of thejob, but they failed to connect the dots as a unified team. A U.S.House Oversight Committee report later cited Equifax’s lack of clearaccountability and poor communication as key factors in the breach (“Equifax’s…process failed to establish clear lines ofaccountability for developing IT security policies and executing thesepolicies”). The Equifax case underscores that even a well-resourcedsecurity program can falter without effective interdepartmental coordination.Simply “throwing the vulnerability over the wall” to other teams is not enough— organizations must ensure the message is heard, understood, and acted upon bythe right people. Had Equifax established a tighter cross-department patchmanagement process — for example, a central tracking system and a task force toverify remediation — the outcome might have been very different.
Case Study 2: Embracing DevSecOps at TechCo —Collaboration for Speed and Safety
On a more positive note, consider the example (anonymized as “TechCo”) of alarge software company that successfully improved its vulnerability managementthrough deliberate conflict resolution and collaboration initiatives. TechCo’ssecurity team was often at odds with its development and operations teams;security engineers would flag vulnerabilities in products, but fixes gotdelayed or deferred across release cycles, causing tension. In 2021, after aminor security incident, TechCo’s leadership took action to bridge these gaps.They adopted a DevSecOps approach, embedding security liaisons intoeach development squad and creating a cross-functional “securitychampions” program. Developers received training on secure coding andthreat modeling, while security staff learned about the developers’ agileworkflow to better integrate their requests. They also set up bi-weekly triagemeetings where security, dev, ops, and compliance representatives jointlyreviewed all open vulnerabilities and decided on prioritization together. Thisforum allowed open debate — if a developer felt a particular issue was lowrisk, they could voice that, and the team might agree to downgrade its priorityor apply a compensating control as a compromise. Over time, these practicesyielded impressive results. The teams went from adversaries to collaborators;one survey found a strong majority of TechCo’s engineers felt their goals werealigned with the security teams'. Tangibly, the mean time to remediatevulnerabilities dropped by over 50% after a year because issues werebeing addressed earlier in the development lifecycle rather than afterdeployment. One Ponemon Institute study notes that improved collaborationbetween development, security, and ops is a primary reason many organizationsare adopting DevSecOps — not only to patch faster but also to automate securitywithout slowing down development (If time is money, vulnerability backlog is really expensive |Ponemon-Sullivan Privacy Report). TechCo’s experience echoed this. Byresolving the underlying conflicts (speed vs. security, ownership of fixes,etc.) through a culture of shared responsibility, they achieved fasterpatching and better morale. Developers no longer feltblindsided by security reports, and security team members reported far fewer“arguments” to get things fixed. Instead, both sides were focusing that energyon proactive risk reduction. TechCo’s journey demonstrates how investing ininterdepartmental harmony — via joint goals, training, and regularcommunication — can transform a vulnerability management program from a painfulslog into a well-oiled, collaborative process.
(Note: TechCo is a composite case inspired by documentedDevSecOps transformations and survey results; individual results will vary, butthe principles of collaboration remain universally applicable.)
Conclusion
In today’s complex corporate IT environments, vulnerabilitymanagement is a team sport. Technical prowess and tools, while important,cannot secure an organization on their own without the human elements ofcoordination and communication. As we’ve seen, when departments operate insilos or let conflicts fester, vulnerabilities stay unpatched, leading tohigher risk of breaches. On the other hand, when organizations invest in interdepartmentalconflict resolution and collaboration, they create a unified front againstsecurity threats. Open communication, clearly defined roles, shared goals, anda culture of mutual respect allow security issues to be addressed swiftly andsmoothly, without the delays and finger-pointing that plague so many programs.
Effective coordination doesn’t happen by accident — itrequires intentional strategies like regular cross-functional meetings,risk-based planning, and building a collaborative culture from the top down.Leadership plays a crucial role in this: executives must champion the messagethat security is everyone’s responsibility and reward teamwork in riskmanagement. In practice, success might look like a security engineer and adeveloper jointly brainstorming a fix for a critical bug, or the operations andcompliance teams working out a plan that satisfies audit requirements withoutjeopardizing uptime. These everyday acts of cooperation, multiplied across anorganization, dramatically improve the resilience of thebusiness. As one industry publication noted, “establishing a culture ofcollaboration within and between stakeholders can help strengthen theorganization’s overall security posture” (Collaboration: The Key To Vulnerability Management).
In summary, the key to successful vulnerabilitymanagement is not only what you do but how you do it together. By breakingdown silos and resolving conflicts constructively, companies can ensure thatvulnerabilities are managed proactively rather than reactively. The result is amore secure enterprise that can innovate with confidence, knowing that itsguardians — across all departments — are working in concert to protect it. Inthe face of ever-evolving cyber threats, this kind of unity isn’t justbeneficial, it’s indispensable.
About the Author
Arturo Avila is the Founder of Dark Analytics, a cybersecurity firmspecializing in protecting hospitals and critical infrastructure from moderndigital threats. With over 15 years of experience in incident response, digitalforensics, and healthcare cybersecurity, Arturo has seen it all — from midnightransomware calls to boardroom briefings. He holds certifications like CISSP,CISA, and GCFA, and is currently completing his Executive MBA at the Universityof South Florida.
Outside of cybersecurity, Arturo moonlights as a stand-upcomedy enthusiast, Muay Thai kickboxer, and beach volleyball player (though notusually at the same time). His mission? To make cybersecurity not justeffective — but a little more human.
References
CISA. (2021). Binding operational directive 22–01:Reducing the significant risk of known exploited vulnerabilities.Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/directives/binding-operational-directive-22-01
Fazlali, M., Azgomi, M. A., & Riahi, M. (2020). Anoverview of vulnerability management practices in organizations. Journalof Information Security and Applications, 55, 102590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2020.102590
IBM Security. (2023). Cost of a Data Breach Report2023. https://www.ibm.com/reports/data-breach
Klein, A. (2020). DevSecOps for managers. ACM Queue, 18(4),58–75. https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3435392
Kornya, D., & Maglaras, L. (2022). A survey onvulnerability management in large-scale enterprises: Challenges andsolutions. Journal of Cyber Security Technology, 6(1), 30–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/23742917.2021.1945451
Ponemon Institute. (2022). The state ofvulnerability management in DevSecOps. Sponsored by Rezilion. https://www.ponemon.org/library/the-state-of-vulnerability-management-in-devsecops
Reed, B., & Zadeh, R. (2021). Security collaborationstrategies: Enhancing developer-security relations in Agileorganizations. IEEE Software, 38(3), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2020.3016952
U.S. House of Representatives. (2018). The EquifaxData Breach. Report of the Committee on Oversight and GovernmentReform. https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Equifax-Report.pdf
Veracode. (2021). State of Software Security, Volume11. https://info.veracode.com/report-state-of-software-security-volume-11.html
White, D., & Moore, M. (2020). Overcoming siloedthinking in vulnerability management. ISACA Journal, 6, 1–6. https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2020/volume-6