Toufic Derbass, Managing Director for the Middle East, Turkiye, and Africa at Kaspersky
Cybersecurity platforms are no longer mere software products. They hold privileged access to enterprise systems, process sensitive security data, distribute updates, and increasingly influence automated security decisions – creating a new governance challenge. Security leaders now need confidence not only that their platforms detect attacks effectively, but also that they remain trustworthy, transparent, and resilient throughout their operational lifecycle.
This raises concerns that were far less prominent only a few years ago:
- Where security telemetry is processed and stored;
- Which jurisdictions may have legal authority over sensitive data;
- How software updates are developed, verified, and delivered;
- The level of transparency into the technologies responsible for protection;
- Whether critical security capabilities stay available during geopolitical, regulatory, or operational disruptions.
AI amplifies these questions. While AI improves detection and response, it also deepens reliance on complex models, large data volumes, and automated decision‑making. These challenges are especially relevant for critical‑infrastructure providers, financial institutions, telecom operators, governments, and any organization where security failures can directly impact operations.
Some firms respond by increasing internal control through hybrid architectures, on‑premises deployments, or internal security capabilities. Complete independence, however, is rarely achievable. Effective cyber protection requires global threat intelligence, continuous research, malware analysis, and expertise that most organizations cannot develop alone. Likewise, replacing commercial tools with open‑source alternatives does not automatically eliminate risk, software supply‑chain security, vulnerabilities, updates, and technology assurance still must be managed.
Thus, the goal is not total technological independence but ensuring that the technologies an organization relies on remain transparent, controllable, and resilient. This is the essence of cybersecurity sovereignty. Sovereignty does not mean rejecting cloud services or external providers, it means maintaining meaningful control over security capabilities and understanding where data is processed, how technologies operate, what dependencies exist, and how security operations can continue amid changing business, regulatory, and geopolitical conditions.
Across Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Russia, China, and beyond, the need to retain control over key technologies is paramount. For CISOs, this expands cyber‑resilience beyond detection to include:
- Control over security infrastructure and data handling;
- Transparency into technology development and operation;
- Operational independence from unacceptable external dependencies.
Implementing cybersecurity sovereignty in practice
Cybersecurity sovereignty requires organizations to combine strong protection capabilities with confidence in how security technologies operate. This means moving beyond traditional questions about detection performance alone and considering broader principles: control over security data, transparency of technology, operational independence, and resilience of critical security functions.
Kaspersky’s approach reflects these principles through a combination of deployment flexibility, transparency initiatives, and security expertise. For organizations that need direct control over security infrastructure, Kaspersky offers on‑premises deployment options that keep security telemetry, operational data, and management functions within customer‑controlled environments.
Transparency is another essential element. Through the Global Transparency Initiative and its network of Transparency Centers, Kaspersky provides customers, partners, and government stakeholders with mechanisms to review aspects of its technologies, including source code, software updates, and security processes.
Operational independence is increasingly important for organizations operating in complex geopolitical and regulatory environments. Maintaining control over where security capabilities run, how updates are managed, and how security operations continue during periods of disruption helps reduce strategic dependency risks.
At the same time, cybersecurity sovereignty does not mean operating in isolation. Effective defense against modern threats requires access to global threat intelligence, continuous research, and advanced detection technologies. The goal is not to eliminate external expertise but to ensure that organizations can use critical security capabilities with greater confidence, transparency, and control.
Ultimately, cybersecurity sovereignty is about creating a more resilient relationship between organizations and the technologies protecting them. Security platforms must not only detect threats effectively – they must also provide the level of trust, visibility, and operational control required by the organizations that depend on them.
