Meet with Reach at RSA 2025
Learn more
When ideal controls aren’t possible, intentional alternatives help reduce exposure.
Most security teams know what the “right” controls look like on paper.But real-world environments rarely match the blueprint. Between legacy systems,limited staffing, and overlapping tools, the gap between what’s ideal and what’s feasible is often wide.
That’s where compensating controls come in.
They aren’t shortcuts. They’re not a fallback. Compensating controls are deliberate choices. Think of them as alternative ways to reduce exposure when the preferred control isn’t practical. When implemented with intent and clarity, they strengthen posture, not weaken it.
A compensating control is a security measure that’s put in place when a primary control can’t be deployed due to technical or business constraints. But it’s more than a backup. It’s expected to deliver comparable protection, often by leveraging what’s already available in the environment.
Common examples include:
The value isn’t in checking a compliance box, it’s in reducing meaningful risk with the resources at hand.
Compensating controls are becoming a core part of modern security strategy, not just an exception. As teams contend with sprawling toolsets,underused features, and constantly shifting priorities, compensating controls offer a path to action without waiting for the perfect setup.
They allow security teams to:
Even regulatory frameworks like PCI-DSS, ISO 27001, and NIST acknowledge their role as long as effectiveness can be demonstrated.
In other words, a compensating control isn’t an excuse. It’s a responsibility.
Not every control labeled “compensating” actually provides equivalent protection. Over time, controls drift. Risk changes. Environments evolve.
Common issues include:
This is where posture starts to break down. When a control is treated as“good enough” simply because it was once approved, exposure creeps back in quietly.
Effective compensating controls follow the same path as any resilient security measure: grounded in context, tied to outcomes, and revisited overtime.
Here’s a pragmatic approach to using them well:
Where are ideal controls not in place and why? Understanding the constraint(technical, operational, political) shapes better alternatives.
Most environments already contain underused features or partially deployed tools. These can often be configured in smarter ways to reduce risk.
Clarify what the control is meant to protect, and how. The value doesn’t have to be perfect, but it should be intentional.
Ownership, scope, and assumptions should be documented. Teams should understand what the control is compensating for and its limitations.
Exposure isn’t static. Compensating controls must be tested and re-evaluated as systems change, threats evolve, or primary controls become more feasible.
It’s not about adding process. It’s about ensuring every control (primary or compensating) is earning its place in your environment.
Compensating controls are part of how resilient organizations manage complexity. They reflect the reality that not everything can be ideal all at once, but progress can still be made.
What matters most isn’t the label. It’s the outcome.
If a control reduces risk, supports posture, and adapts to change, then it belongs. If it doesn’t, then it needs attention.
This is a good moment to look across your environment. Where are you relying on compensating controls? Are they intentional? Are they still effective? Are they quietly becoming risks themselves?
Security isn’t just about what’s ideal. It’s about what works.
To join the community of customers enjoying the benefits of Reach and learn more about how it can transform your security posture, visit:
