What Cybersecurity Leaders Are Talking About
The compliance-versus-security tension has reached a breaking point. Leaders are increasingly vocal that regulatory checkboxes aren't protecting them when attacks actually happen—80% feel confident meeting regulatory standards, yet only 60% believe they're truly resilient. The gap between those numbers tells you everything about where the frustration sits right now.
Priorities & Pain Points
Three new priorities dominate leadership conversations this period: combining AI, automation, human expertise, and data for offensive security; protecting the entire attack surface for customers of all sizes; and making pentesting efficient, scalable, and risk-reducing. These aren't abstract goals—they're responses to specific operational realities leaders are confronting.
The pain points driving these priorities are equally specific and newly prominent. "Security today doesn't mean secure tomorrow" has emerged as a critical concern—leaders recognize that yesterday's defensive posture is outdated the moment it's implemented. More damning: compliance does not equal security; it "only sets a floor, point-in-time snapshot." Even worse, compliance can encourage bad behavior, pushing teams to focus on clean reports rather than actual risk mitigation. One emerging metaphor captures this perfectly: "green green green green on a report" while real vulnerabilities remain unaddressed.
Companies are spending millions on security tools that prove ineffective when tested by actual attacks. The ongoing shortage of cybersecurity expertise makes this worse—you can't even find the people who'd know whether your tools work.
Factor-wise, Operations climbed +0.11 and Risk jumped +0.13, while Data dropped -0.16. Leaders are getting more pragmatic about execution and risk management, but perhaps losing confidence in data-driven approaches that haven't delivered promised results.
Buying Signals & Red Flags
New buying signals cluster around three realizations: Security programs typically start from compliance needs—a regulatory requirement or customer demand—but leaders are now recognizing that's merely table stakes. The true trigger comes when companies invest heavily in cybersecurity but find tools ineffective when actually attacked. This gap between investment and protection is driving serious budget reallocation.
The third new signal: leaders are abandoning the assumption that "security today means secure tomorrow." This realization that continuous improvement is needed for resilience is opening wallets for ongoing testing and monitoring solutions, not just point-in-time tools.
Red flags mirror these inversely. Vendors who assume security today means secure tomorrow get dismissed immediately. So do those who conflate compliance with security or who help teams prioritize clean reports over understanding actual risk. Deploying AI without regular security assessments is now seen as reckless. The decision framework emerging is "human-led, AI-powered"—combining automation with expertise—and any approach lacking that balance raises suspicion.
Language & Jargon Watch
"Attack surface" is the emerging jargon winner, appearing as both priority and evaluation criteria. The phrase signals a shift from perimeter defense to comprehensive exposure mapping.
Three power words are rising: strategic, efficient, and resilient. These aren't buzzwords—they reflect the operational maturity leaders are demanding from solutions.
The metaphors tell a richer story. "Compliance is really setting the floor" distinguishes baseline requirements from actual security. "Fighting last year's battles" captures frustration with reactive postures. Most telling: "AI as an extremely intelligent and educated intern"—leaders want AI augmentation but insist on human oversight. One executive described the ideal as a "manager with an eager intern" where AI preps and humans approve.
The decision framework of "human in the loop" appears repeatedly, emphasizing validation regardless of AI use case. "Attacker's mindset" and "continuous testing through the eyes of an attacker" signal preference for offensive security approaches over passive monitoring.
The Shift
The data shows leaders moving from defensive tool accumulation to offensive, continuous testing. The Operations and Risk factor increases suggest they're getting more serious about execution over theory. That Data factor decline (-0.16) is notable—it might reflect disillusionment with security analytics that generate alert fatigue without meaningful protection.
Watch whether the compliance-versus-security criticism translates into actual budget shifts away from compliance-focused tools toward continuous offensive security platforms. The metaphor shift from "security posture" to "attacker's perspective" suggests this isn't just talk—it's a fundamental reframing of how protection gets operationalized.