The invisible line between IT and InfoSec (and why it keeps getting crossed)

IT and InfoSec are supposed to be teammates. In theory, they share the same goal: Keep systems running and keep systems secure. But in practice? It feels less like a partnership and more like divorced parents arguing over who gets the kids on the weekend. Except the “kids” are your endpoints, and neither side wants to be responsible for the screaming when something breaks. 

So why does this turf war exist, and more importantly, how do you stop it from slowing your org down? Let’s pull back the curtain. 

Why IT and InfoSec clash

IT focuses on uptime. InfoSec focuses on risk. That’s a simplification, but it’s the root of the tension. When IT rolls out a patch, they’re thinking about stability and business continuity. When InfoSec pushes for a patch, they’re thinking about CVEs and attack surfaces. Both sides are right, but they’re often talking past each other. 

Another friction point: ownership. Who “owns” patch management? Who’s responsible for vulnerability scanning? If you ask IT, they’ll say security makes requests without understanding operational impact. If you ask InfoSec, they’ll say IT drags their feet and ignores urgent vulnerabilities. Both have a point. 

And then there’s communication. IT and InfoSec often use different tools, different reports, and even different definitions of “done.” Add in some passive-aggressive Slack messages, and suddenly what should be collaboration feels like trench warfare. 

The cost of the turf war

When IT and InfoSec don’t align, nobody wins. Patches get delayed. Shadow IT sneaks in. Risk piles up while productivity suffers. You don’t just get inefficiency — you get blind spots that attackers are chomping at the bit to exploit. 

It also affects culture. Nothing erodes trust faster than constant finger-pointing. If every incident turns into “we told you so,” your teams will stop sharing information. And once that happens, your chances of quickly containing threats drop to near zero. 

How to find common ground

Here’s the good news: IT and InfoSec really do want the same thing. Nobody in IT wants ransomware. Nobody in InfoSec wants broken production systems. The friction comes from priorities and perspectives — not malice. So how do you bridge the gap? Start with three simple steps: 

1. Align on goals

Make sure IT and InfoSec have a shared understanding of what matters most to the business. (Hint: consult those compliance frameworks you've committed to, like SOC 2, to simplify this process.) Whether it’s uptime, compliance, time to resolve critical vulnerabilities, or protecting sensitive data, that north star should guide decisions. 

2. Agree on languag

Define terms like “critical patch” or “acceptable downtime.” Clarity kills ambiguity, and ambiguity is where turf wars thrive. 

3. Standardize reporting

If InfoSec reports vulnerabilities in one format and IT tracks patches in another, misalignment is guaranteed. Build a shared source of truth. 

Practical ways to stop fighting and start collaborating

Theory is nice, but sysadmins don’t live in theory. Here are a few tactical ways to bring IT and InfoSec closer to a working truce: 

Use automation as neutral ground

Automated patching and vulnerability scans reduce finger-pointing because the process doesn’t depend on manual back-and-forth. When the tool says “this system is out of compliance,” there’s less room for debate. 

Create joint runbooks

Instead of IT having one playbook and InfoSec another, develop shared response plans. For example, when a high-severity CVE drops, what’s the exact process? Who tests, who patches, and who signs off? 

Set service-level agreements (SLAs)

Define how quickly vulnerabilities should be addressed. This prevents “ASAP” requests that feel like ambushes and keeps expectations realistic. 

Establish escalation paths

Not every patch is straightforward. Sometimes a “critical” vulnerability comes with a patch that destabilizes critical apps. Clear escalation processes prevent stalemates. 

Celebrate wins together

When both teams knock out a major update without downtime or breach, highlight it. Shared victories build shared trust. 

When and why leadership has to step in

If IT and InfoSec can’t get aligned on their own, leadership needs to help. That doesn’t mean picking favorites. It means: 

• Making collaboration part of performance reviews. 

• Ensuring budgets support shared tools rather than siloed. 

• Backing decisions that balance security and uptime instead of prioritizing one at the expense of the other. 

Without leadership support, even the best intentions from IT and InfoSec can eventually wither under daily firefighting. 

The role of visibility

At the end of the day, visibility is power. When both teams can see the same data — patch status, vulnerability exposure, endpoint health — the arguments shift from “I think” to “I know.” That’s where tools like PDQ Connect shine. By giving both IT and InfoSec real-time visibility into endpoints, you remove the biggest source of miscommunication: conflicting data. 

Better visibility means fewer “Did you patch this yet?” emails and more time spent on proactive work. It also means that when a crisis hits, everyone is working from the same playbook. 

The turf war between IT and InfoSec isn’t inevitable. It’s the result of mismatched priorities, unclear ownership, and bad communication. Fix those, and you’ll transform the relationship from adversarial to collaborative. And let’s be real: Both teams already have enough enemies. Cybercriminals, zero days, rogue IoT devices that nobody remembers buying … the last thing you need is to treat each other like the opposition.