When organisations talk about “enterprise security,” it often sounds abstract; dashboards, policies, and compliance checklists. For Vishnu Gatla, it’s something far more tangible. Over the past decade, he has been in the rooms where high-stakes decisions are made, working alongside banks, universities, and critical infrastructure providers to keep their digital operations secure and running smoothly. As a senior infrastructure and application security consultant specialising in F5 BIG-IP and web application firewall automation, Gatla has made a career out of turning powerful but complex security tools into practical defences that actually work in the real world.
In this Interview with TechBullion, he reflects on what it’s really like to secure mission-critical systems, how seasoned teams think about risk and resilience, and why effective application security is as much about people and processes as it is about technology.
Could you tell us a little more about yourself and the impact you are making in your expertise?
My name is Vishnu Gatla. I am a Senior Professional Services Consultant specializing in enterprise application security and infrastructure, with over a decade of experience supporting highly regulated organizations in the United States, including large financial institutions, universities, and critical infrastructure environments.
My work is primarily focused on web application firewall (WAF) strategy, application security automation, and resilient application delivery, particularly in environments where security controls exist but fail to operate reliably under real production conditions. I help organizations move beyond compliance-driven implementations by translating security controls into operationally effective, measurable defenses through validation, automation, and risk-based decision-making.
The impact of my work is reflected in reduced production incidents, improved application availability during security events, and more predictable security operations in mission-critical environments where downtime or misconfiguration carries significant risk.
From your decade of work in highly regulated sectors, what practical indicators reveal that an organisation’s application security programme is driven by compliance rather than genuine risk management?
A compliance-driven program is usually identifiable by its reliance on static indicators rather than operational outcomes. Common signs include security controls that are technically deployed but rarely tested under real traffic conditions, policies that remain in learning or monitoring modes indefinitely, and success metrics tied to audits rather than incident reduction.
Another indicator is decision-making that prioritizes documentation over validation. When teams cannot clearly explain which threats are actively mitigated, or when controls are routinely bypassed to preserve uptime without structured risk assessment, it suggests the program is designed to satisfy regulatory checklists rather than manage actual risk.
When security controls disrupt a mission-critical service, how do experienced teams determine what to adjust, what to roll back, and what must remain in place?
Mature teams distinguish between control failure and control friction. The first step is isolating whether the disruption is caused by incorrect assumptions, incomplete baselining, or a genuine conflict between protection and application behavior.
Controls that address known, high-impact threats are rarely removed outright. Instead, experienced teams adjust scope, enforcement thresholds, or automation logic while preserving baseline protections. Rollbacks are reserved for changes that introduce systemic instability, not for controls that simply require refinement.
This approach requires confidence in telemetry, change history, and traffic visibility, without those, teams tend to over-correct and weaken security unnecessarily.
What are the most frequently underestimated resilience risks when enterprises operate WAF platforms across hybrid on-premise and cloud environments?
One of the most underestimated risks is configuration drift across environments. Policies that behave correctly on-premise may perform very differently in cloud deployments due to differences in traffic patterns, scaling behavior, and upstream integrations.
Another risk is fragmented ownership. When cloud and on-premise teams operate independently, enforcement consistency and incident response coordination suffer. This fragmentation often becomes visible only during outages or active attacks, when response paths are unclear.
Finally, automation that is not environment-aware can amplify failures at scale, turning small misconfigurations into widespread disruptions.
In large banks and universities, which governance barriers most commonly hinder effective WAF deployment and remediation?
The most common barrier is unclear accountability. WAF platforms often sit between infrastructure, application, and security teams, with no single group owning outcomes. This leads to slow remediation and conservative configurations that prioritize stability over protection.
Change governance is another challenge. Lengthy approval processes discourage timely policy updates, even when risks are well understood. Over time, this results in outdated protections that no longer align with evolving application behavior or threat models.
Effective programs address this by aligning ownership with outcomes and embedding security decisions into operational workflows rather than treating them as exceptions.
How do you guide organisations from reactive incident response towards proactive application defence without creating operational friction?
The transition starts by shifting focus from blocking events to understanding patterns. Rather than reacting to individual alerts, teams benefit from identifying recurring behaviors, attack paths, and application sensitivities.
Automation plays a role, but only when grounded in validated assumptions. Proactive defense is achieved by incrementally enforcing protections, continuously measuring impact, and adjusting controls based on observed outcomes rather than theoretical risk.
Equally important is collaboration. Security teams must frame controls as availability enablers rather than obstacles in order to gain sustained adoption.
What measurable signals do you rely on to determine whether WAF automation is genuinely reducing real-world incidents?
Meaningful signals include reductions in repeat incident types, decreased manual intervention during attacks, and improved mean time to resolution without increased false positives.
Another important indicator is predictability. When automated controls behave consistently across releases and traffic changes, operational confidence increases. Conversely, automation that introduces volatility or unexplained behavior often indicates insufficient validation.
Metrics tied only to alert volume are insufficient; the focus should be on incident impact and operational stability.
When protecting legacy applications with modern WAF capabilities, what compromises do you typically negotiate with application and platform teams?
The primary compromise involves accepting partial enforcement in exchange for long-term improvement. Legacy applications often cannot tolerate strict security profiles immediately, so protections are introduced progressively.
Teams may agree to protect critical attack vectors first while allowing time to remediate application behavior that triggers false positives. The key is ensuring that reduced enforcement is temporary and measurable, not a permanent exception.
Clear timelines and shared accountability help prevent legacy constraints from becoming permanent security gaps.
Based on your experience in critical infrastructure environments, which cultural changes matter more than technology in improving security outcomes?
The most impactful cultural change is shifting from blame avoidance to shared responsibility. When teams view security incidents as system failures rather than individual mistakes, root causes are addressed more effectively.
Another critical shift is valuing operational feedback over assumptions. Teams that regularly validate controls against real traffic and real incidents outperform those that rely solely on design-time models.
Ultimately, culture determines whether technology is used as a static safeguard or a continuously improving defense.
Looking ahead, which transformation in cloud or application architecture will most challenge traditional enterprise security models, and why?
The increasing abstraction of infrastructure through managed services, serverless platforms, and distributed application architectures will challenge security models built around centralized control points.
As enforcement moves closer to the application and becomes more dynamic, traditional perimeter-centric approaches lose effectiveness. Enterprises will need to adapt by emphasizing visibility, automation, and intent-based policy rather than static rule sets.
Security teams that fail to evolve alongside modern application architecture risk losing relevance, even if their tools remain technically sophisticated.
