This week Iain Franklin, European vice president at intrusion prevention software company Entercept, warns that an over reliance on data analysis can be counterproductive in the fight against hackers.
Without detailed information on the hacks directed at the network, it is difficult for a security administrator to know why an attack has been blocked and how to mitigate against future threats.
Yet information overload is also an issue. As hacking levels continue to rise, security professionals are being overwhelmed by the ever increasing amount of alerts their security products are generating.
So the requirement for forensic information regarding attacks on individual networks has grown as well.
The security industry has seen the emergence of new security products which aim to monitor and compile alert information produced by many different types of security product.
These systems draw information from antivirus software, firewalls and intrusion detection systems, to give the user one central repository for all alarm information.
The security administrator can then cross-correlate this data to look for interesting patterns of hacking activity and use this information to harden their systems still further.
Yet, with all this reliance on data analysis, the security industry has actually lead itself up a blind alley.
In the past there was no way of preventing malicious activity, so security administrators needed as much data as possible about attacks on their systems in order to try to protect the network.
But with the advent of intrusion prevention systems which detect attacks and prevent them before they cause damage, the whole industry is gradually moving towards a preventative model.
However, in some quarters where this preventative approach has not been adopted, the objective of the security policy has become distorted.
These companies are more interested in analysing data than actually detecting and preventing attacks.
By relying on data analysis, many companies have effectively built their security procedures on sand. The more security devices a company has, the more information security administrators are bombarded with.
And the more information they are faced with, the harder it is to decide on an appropriate reaction.
In many cases, the information provided is inaccurate. Intrusion detection systems, for example, generate a large amount of false positives, where the system detects activity which it classes as malicious but is actually normal network activity.
Without adopting a preventative model, many companies are actually missing the point. Investing in more security products does not actually create increased security, only the illusion of it.
In the same way, analysing more and more data does not make a company more secure either. The number one objective of any security system is surely to prevent attacks from causing damage.
This must never be replaced by the illusion of security, which is all data analysis can ever bring.
Dr Kuan Hon criticises GDPR consent emails that will only eviscerate marketing databases and 'media misinformation'
Apple squashes Steam Link app on 'business conflicts' grounds
Philip Hammond wants to forget rules that the UK agreed with the EU to ban non-European companies from the satellites
Instapaper to 'go dark' in Europe until it can work out GDPR compliance