Sabitlenmiş Tweet
There’s something in the cybersecurity training and cyber range space that needs to change.
We’ve gotten really good at building environments that look impressive—but are too complex for clients to actually use once we walk away.
And we’ve gotten even better at selling expensive solutions… without fully accounting for what it takes to sustain them.
This hits hardest in places that actually need this capability the most:
- small and mid-sized government organizations
- universities operating on grants
- teams already stretched thin supporting day-to-day operations
They invest heavily upfront in a cyber range, expecting it to build long-term capability.
But what often gets missed is this:
Who is maintaining it?
Who is building new scenarios?
Who is keeping it aligned with current threats?
In large federal environments, there are often dedicated teams to absorb that workload.
In smaller environments, there aren’t.
So the range sits underutilized—not because it lacks value, but because sustainment was never realistically built into the model.
Cyber ranges shouldn’t be one-time purchases or oversized technical demos. They should be living systems—something teams can actually use, adapt, and grow with over time.
If it doesn’t:
- translate into real-world decision-making
- evolve with current threats
- and remain usable by the people it’s meant to support
…then it’s not building capability. It’s just checking a box.
The future of this space isn’t bigger environments—it’s better outcomes.
More sustainment.
More realism.
More alignment with how organizations actually operate.
We should be building something that’s still delivering value 6 months later—not something that fades the moment we step back.
Curious how others are seeing this—especially those working in ICS/OT, government, and academic environments.
English
