Managed Security Services Are Optimised for Detection, Not Survival

How Managed Security Service Providers (MSSPs) are perceived is clear. They are expected to reduce operational risk, help with compliance and respond fast when things go wrong. ENISA's 2025 MSS Market Analysis reveals that this falls often short, especially once incidents move beyond detection. Here are the key gap's between what customers demand, what suppliers deliver and regulators expect.

ENISA’s 2025 MSS Market Analysis was informed by a broad survey of stakeholders across demand (MSS users), supply (MSS providers) and regulatory bodies, including both EU-based and international organisations with an EU presence.

What makes the report interesting is not novelty. It is confirmation. Many of the structural frictions documented are patterns practitioners from both sides of the isles have been dealing with for years.

MSS are focusing on detection not on survivability of incidents

The strongest alignment across demand, supply and regulators sits around monitoring and detection. Managed detection and response, SIEM, threat monitoring and alerting dominate MSS portfolios and regulatory focus.

Where alignment breaks is after detection. The report shows a significant gap between customer expectations for restore and recovery and what MSS providers deliver. Demand prioritises preparedness, prevention, recovery and coordination. Supply still leans towards technical control delivery. This is not a tooling issue. It is an operating model issue. Cyber security is still optimised for finding incidents, not for surviving them.

One-size MSS offerings struggle in real environments.

The data shows a clear preference for hybrid delivery models. Customers want a mix of internal control, external capability and tailored integration. Large-scale, uniform MSS offerings overestimate demand for fully outsourced, standardised services.

Integration complexity, SLA customisation and alignment with internal processes remain major friction points. Providers see customisation as a burden. Customers see it as a prerequisite for trust. The market is signalling that scale alone is not the differentiator. Fit is.

Governance and resilience are underweighted across the ecosystem.

Regulatory frameworks and MSS certifications still emphasise technical controls. Governance, coordination, recovery and crisis management receive far less attention.

This creates a structural imbalance. Customers expect MSS providers to support decision-making during incidents. Providers are measured mainly on detection metrics. Regulators reinforce that focus. The result is predictable. Strong dashboards. Weak incident command. Cyber security becomes a technical service instead of an organisational capability.

What are the implications for buyers and providers?

• For executives: MSS decisions are resilience decisions. If recovery, coordination and leadership support are not contractually anchored, they will not appear during a crisis.

  
  

• For MSS customers: Buying detection without survivability creates a false sense of control. Evaluate MSS based on incident handling depth, not alert volume.

  
  

• For MSS providers: Differentiation will come from operational integration, crisis support and recovery capabilities, not from more sensors.

  
  

• For organisational design: Cyber security leadership must span technology, operations and governance. MSS should extend internal capability, not replace accountability.

Resilience is not detecting faster. It is stabilising sooner.

Most organisations are well instrumented. Few are well rehearsed.

Cyber incidents are not lost because signals were missed. They are lost because decisions were late, responsibilities unclear and recovery unprepared.

Managed Security Services that do not address this reality optimise for the wrong outcome.