Legacy systems such as end-of-life software and obsolete, but still critical operational technology (OT) create cybersecurity risks that need to be mitigated or addressed through modernization. Ayo Akinsanya, CISSP, CC, shares his personal perspective on addressing this challenge.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author and do not necessarily reflect those of ISC2.
For all the investment that may take place in the latest technologies, legacy systems still form the backbone of countless organizations, quietly powering critical operations long after their expected lifespan. Yet these technology workhorses often become security blind spots – vulnerable to modern threats yet too essential to replace outright. Over my career working with legacy environments across banking, healthcare, government and manufacturing sectors, I've learned that successful modernization requires equal parts technical skill and organizational diplomacy.
Through hard-won experience – including several projects where assumptions led to near-disasters – I've identified five security considerations that consistently prove most critical during legacy modernization. These are not just technical challenges; they represent fundamental tensions between security ideals and operational realities.
Undocumented System Dependencies
A critical banking security upgrade taught me an invaluable lesson about the hidden complexities lurking within legacy systems. What began as a straightforward encryption implementation for a customer account database quickly revealed itself to be a web of undocumented dependencies that threatened the entire modernization effort.
When I deployed the new security controls, three mission-critical systems failed simultaneously. First, regulatory reporting tools ceased functioning because they required specific unencrypted data formats that our encryption had disrupted. Second, real-time fraud detection systems became unreliable due to the latency introduced by our new security layers. Most surprisingly, branch staffing algorithms failed because they depended on transaction forecasts drawn from our database – a dependency that had never been documented.
The root cause became painfully clear during our investigation. The original implementation team had departed years earlier, taking with them the institutional knowledge of these critical integrations. What saved the project was our shift from relying on documentation to becoming system archaeologists. I spent weeks analyzing production network traffic, examining failed transactions and interviewing veteran employees to reconstruct the true architecture.
Our solution emerged from this chaos. I developed transformation layers that maintained legacy compatibility while enabling modern security - a bridge between old and new systems. This compromise allowed gradual migration rather than disruptive change. More importantly, I established processes to capture and maintain this hard-won institutional knowledge.
This experience fundamentally reshaped my approach to legacy modernization. I now allocate significant time specifically for dependency discovery through production monitoring and cross-departmental collaboration. The professional lesson remains clear: in legacy environments, undocumented dependencies represent the single greatest risk to successful modernization. Comprehensive discovery must precede implementation, and institutional knowledge must be treated as a critical business asset.
Access Control: Balancing Security with Operational Continuity
Nothing exposes the tension between security ideals and operational reality like modifying access controls in legacy systems. At a regional healthcare network, I found a 1990s-era patient records system where 75% of clinical staff had administrative rights. This was not because they needed them, but because granular controls didn't exist when the system was originally deployed during emergency room expansions.
The security textbook solution – immediate enforcement of least privilege – would have disrupted patient care during critical situations. Instead, I designed a transitional hybrid model: new authentication used modern identity management, while legacy credentials remained valid but with reduced privileges. Over six months, I incrementally tightened controls while monitoring operational impact on patient access times.
This approach succeeded where others failed, because it respected two truths about legacy systems: first, that access patterns often reflect forgotten workarounds rather than carelessness and, second, that abrupt changes trigger resistance that can derail entire projects. The eventual solution combined gradual enforcement with targeted training that explained how new controls would simplify their workflow.
Legacy Database Encryption: Navigating Compatibility Challenges
Modern encryption standards can seem like silver bullets for legacy database risks… until reality strikes. At a financial services firm, I learned this the hard way when what appeared to be a straightforward database encryption project nearly derailed critical regulatory operation.
The target was a customer database supporting various legacy applications, including fifteen FoxPro reports that had been automatically generating regulatory filings since the 1990s. These reports were mission-critical; any disruption would mean missed regulatory deadlines and potential compliance violations.
When I implemented column-level encryption, every single FoxPro report failed. The applications expected specific data formats and field lengths that our encryption had fundamentally altered. The reports relied on fixed-width file structures and direct database field access patterns that became incompatible with encrypted data.
Investigation revealed the deeper challenge: the legacy database had been designed to sacrifice security for performance. Denormalized tables stored redundant customer data to speed up queries. Stored procedures bypassed normal access controls to maintain sub-second response times for teller transactions. The entire architecture prioritized operational efficiency over data protection.
Our solution required complete redesign of the encryption approach. Instead of column-level encryption, I implemented file-level encryption that maintained data structure compatibility. I created a dual-layer system where sensitive fields were selectively encrypted while preserving the fixed-width formats the FoxPro applications required. Performance testing with actual production workloads became mandatory after I discovered a 300% query slowdown during testing.
The lesson was clear: legacy database encryption requires understanding the entire application ecosystem, not just the database structure itself.
Encryption implementation challenges
Implementing encryption in legacy environments creates unexpected compatibility and performance issues. While encryption provides obvious security benefits, legacy applications weren't designed to handle encrypted data operations.
One Financial Advisor Database encryption project encountered multiple complications. The encryption implementation met technical requirements, but integration with existing applications created significant problems.
Application compatibility issues emerged immediately. Several reporting applications relied on SQL functions incompatible with encrypted data, so string comparisons, pattern matching and sorting operations failed. The system's search functionality was built around full-text indexing that couldn't operate on encrypted fields.
Performance impact exceeded my worst expectations: database queries that previously executed in milliseconds required several seconds, while batch processing jobs that completed overnight began extending into business hours.
Backup and recovery procedures also failed during testing. The existing backup system wasn't compatible with encrypted data formats, and recovery attempts failed because backup compression algorithms conflicted with our encryption implementation.
Resolution required rebuilding the data access architecture. I implemented selective encryption for sensitive fields while leaving indexable fields unencrypted.
Workflow Integration Failures
The most overlooked aspect of legacy security modernization involves understanding existing workflows and user behavior patterns. Legacy systems often support informal processes that have evolved over years.
A government document management system I worked on received comprehensive security improvements including role-based access controls, detailed audit logging and multi-factor authentication. The technical implementation succeeded from a security perspective.
User adoption revealed significant workflow disruptions. The new system required formal access requests for documents users had accessed routinely. Emergency access procedures that depended on supervisor override capabilities no longer functioned. Audit logging revealed extensive credential sharing – not due to carelessness, but because collaborative work processes required it.
Users began developing workarounds that reduced security: documents were shared via email instead of the secure system, while personal file shares replaced collaborative workspaces. Some users printed and scanned documents to circumvent digital controls.
My solution involved redesigning security controls to accommodate actual work patterns while maintaining oversight capabilities. I implemented group-based access for collaborative documents and streamlined emergency access procedures.
Legacy Considerations to Take Away
These five considerations – undocumented integrations, performance optimization conflicts, authentication complexity, encryption complications and workflow compatibility – appear consistently in legacy modernization projects. Legacy systems exist within complex technical environments and established workflows. Successful security modernization requires understanding and accommodating these environments rather than replacing them entirely.
The common thread that I’ve noted across these challenges is the fundamental tension between security theory and operational reality. Academic security frameworks assume greenfield implementations with comprehensive documentation and predictable performance. Legacy environments present systems built over decades through countless compromises and workarounds that have become essential to operations.
The most critical lesson that I would want to pass on is that institutional knowledge represents a strategic asset that must be actively preserved. The departure of veteran staff can leave organizations vulnerable to making modernization decisions that seem logical on paper yet prove disastrous in practice.
The evolutionary approach consistently proves more effective than revolutionary change. Each successful project involved building bridges between old and new systems rather than attempting wholesale replacement. This methodology requires more time and complex technical implementations but delivers sustainable improvements that enhance rather than disrupt operations.
Testing methodologies must adapt to legacy environments. Synthetic benchmarks often fail to reveal the performance degradation and compatibility issues that emerge in production. Real-world testing with actual users and production data becomes essential for identifying problems before they become crises.
Finally, I’d pass on to other professionals my understanding that legacy security modernization is as much about change management as technical implementation. Users will resist changes that appear to make their jobs more difficult. Success requires understanding existing workflows, designing security controls that enhance productivity, and investing in training that demonstrates benefits.
For practitioners embarking on legacy modernization projects, the path forward involves comprehensive discovery before implementation, evolutionary change, extensive real-world testing, and deep engagement with human systems. While more challenging than implementing security in new systems, this approach often delivers the most significant organizational impact.
Ayo Akinsanya, CISSP, CC, has 15 years of experience in financial services, healthcare technology, government, insurance and manufacturing sectors. He has held technical, business analysis and management roles, with responsibility for cybersecurity frameworks, ERP implementations and digital transformation projects.
Related Insights
