Blog

Anyone who’s ever sat through a cybersecurity presentation that felt like a kindergarten art class knows the frustration. David White, president and co-founder at Axio, tells of meeting after meeting where security leaders, armed with risk heatmaps, find themselves outmaneuvered by finance teams wielding precise economic analyses. It’s enough to make you wonder: at what point did cyber defense become a coloring contest? This post is for anyone ready to throw out the crayons and rethink what real organizational resilience looks like.

Stop Coloring—Start Calculating: The Problem with Simplified Security Metrics

Picture this scene: A security leader walks confidently into the boardroom, armed with colorful slides showing red, yellow, and green indicators of company risk posture. Meanwhile, other executives arrive with detailed financial projections and ROI analyses. Who do you think walks away with budget approval?

The answer isn't surprising, yet many security professionals continue this outdated approach.

The Crayon Problem

"Security leaders need to put down the crayons because security leaders are still marching into the boardroom with their red, yellow, and green crayons." This statement perfectly captures a fundamental disconnect happening in corporate security discussions.

Traditional risk scoring systems—those familiar traffic light indicators—might seem intuitive, but they do boards a significant disservice. Why? Because they oversimplify complex security landscapes into subjective color codes that fail to translate into the language that matters most in boardrooms: financial impact.

Money Talks, Colors Walk

Let's face it. When department heads compete for limited resources, financial justification isn't just helpful—it's mandatory for budget allocation. Other departments aren't showing up with abstract visualizations; they're arriving with:

• Revenue forecasts
• Cost reduction models
• Clear ROI calculations
• Profit margin improvements

Meanwhile, security teams often struggle to quantify their value in similar terms. The harsh reality? You can't effectively argue for funding against colleagues who present detailed financial models if all you bring is a color-coded heatmap.

The Competition for Resources

Every corporate investment decision is essentially a competition. Security investments must compete on data, not just gut feeling or fear-based urgency. When the marketing team can demonstrate a 300% return on their proposed campaign while security talks vaguely about "reducing risk," which pitch do you think resonates more with financial decision-makers?

This isn't about trivializing security concerns—quite the opposite. It's about elevating security discussions to the same analytical rigor applied to other business decisions.

Translating Technical Risk Into Financial Language

Effective security advocacy means bridging the gap between technical concepts and financial outcomes. This requires security leaders to:

1. Quantify potential losses from security incidents
2. Calculate the expected risk reduction from specific investments
3. Present clear cost-benefit analyses for security initiatives
4. Demonstrate how security enables business opportunities

Boardrooms consistently respond better to financial modeling over subjective risk visualizations. When security becomes measurable in dollars and cents, it transforms from a necessary evil into a strategic business enabler.

Beyond the Traffic Light

Security metrics need not be overly complex to be effective. The key is making them relevant to business outcomes. Instead of simply saying "high risk" (red), translate that into "potential $2.3M loss from operational disruption" or "regulatory penalties exceeding $500K."

This approach doesn't diminish the technical complexity of security work—it enhances its perceived value by connecting it directly to business priorities.

The path forward is clear: security leaders must evolve from color-coding risks to calculating their financial implications. Only then will cybersecurity receive the strategic priority and resources it truly deserves in today's threat landscape.

The Preparedness Paradox: How Overconfidence Threatens True Resilience

Most organizations believe they're ready for cyber attacks. They have plans, teams, and technologies in place. But are they truly prepared? Research suggests otherwise.

The Illusion of Readiness

Research from the University of Oxford has uncovered what they call the "preparedness paradox" - an inverse relationship between how prepared an organization thinks it is and how prepared it actually is when facing a major cyber event.

This phenomenon creates a dangerous situation: the more confident an organization feels about its cyber defenses, the more vulnerable it might actually be.

There's an overconfidence in preparedness for an event, described as the preparedness paradox in research.

This overconfidence isn't just a minor misconception—it's a significant blind spot that can lead to devastating consequences when reality strikes.

Why Organizations Overestimate Their Readiness

Several factors contribute to this misalignment between perception and reality:

• Limited understanding of potential impact - Many organizations simply don't comprehend the full scope of damage a major cyber incident can cause
• Underestimation of recovery resources - The time, money, and human capital needed to recover is often severely underestimated
• Lack of real-world experience - Without having lived through a major incident, it's difficult to grasp the chaos that ensues

The Culture of "It Won't Happen to Us"

Perhaps the most pervasive issue is the cultural skepticism that exists even within security-conscious organizations. This attitude manifests in various ways:

• Executive leadership that views cybersecurity as a cost center rather than critical infrastructure
• Employees who see security protocols as obstacles rather than protections
• Security professionals who face daily resistance from colleagues who don't share their sense of urgency

Even CISOs and risk leaders who understand the threats must constantly battle this organizational skepticism. They're often viewed as alarmists rather than pragmatists.

The Insurance Gap

Another troubling symptom of the preparedness paradox is the misalignment between an organization's actual risk exposure and their insurance coverage.

Many organizations:

• Purchase inadequate coverage based on optimistic risk assessments
• Fail to understand policy limitations and exclusions
• Don't account for the full financial impact of an incident

What's worse, insurance recoveries after major incidents can take up to 12 months - a timeline few organizations are prepared to weather without significant operational disruption.

Breaking Through the Paradox

Acknowledging the preparedness paradox is the first step toward addressing it. Organizations need to:

• Conduct realistic tabletop exercises that don't pull punches
• Consult with organizations that have experienced major breaches
• Regularly review and align insurance portfolios with actual risk exposure
• Work to shift organizational culture from skepticism to pragmatic caution

True resilience begins with humility about our preparedness. Organizations that acknowledge their limitations paradoxically become more capable of addressing them effectively.

Muscle Memory for the Unexpected: Embedding Resilience Through Practice

When disaster strikes, organizations don't rise to the occasion—they fall to their level of preparation. Recent high-profile cyber incidents have made this painfully clear.

Building a Culture, Not Checking Boxes

Building resilience isn't something you can simply check off a to-do list. It's an ongoing cultural exercise that requires consistent attention and practice.

Consider the stark contrast between Colonial Pipeline and Clorox in their recovery timelines:

• Colonial Pipeline: Restored operations in 5 days, but maintained incident response teams for 11 months with an impact exceeding $100 million
• Clorox: Took 6-7 weeks to restore operations, with response teams active for 12 months and financial impact around $400 million

What made the difference? Often, it comes down to preparation and the organization's "muscle memory" for crisis response.

The Power of Simulation

How do you develop this muscle memory? Through practice—specifically, tabletop exercises that simulate real-world incidents.

Tabletop activities are a really effective way to build a strong resilience culture.

These exercises don't need to be elaborate productions. Even short, focused sessions can help teams internalize response protocols and decision-making frameworks that become crucial during actual incidents.

Think of it like a fire drill. You hope you'll never need it, but when smoke fills the hallways, you're grateful your body remembers what to do without conscious thought.

Creating Realistic Practice Sessions

Effective tabletop exercises share several key characteristics:

• They present realistic scenarios based on actual threat intelligence
• They involve cross-functional teams (not just IT and security)
• They focus on decision-making under pressure
• They include recovery planning, not just immediate response

The goal isn't to "win" the exercise—it's to fail safely, learn, and improve. Each practice session builds collective confidence and reveals gaps before they become catastrophic problems.

From Practice to Performance

Culture emerges from "the things we do over and over again." By maintaining persistent conversations about risk and regularly exercising response capabilities, organizations develop a shared understanding of both threats and remedies.

This collective wisdom becomes invaluable when facing the unexpected. While Colonial Pipeline and Clorox both suffered significant impacts, their experiences highlight how preparation influences recovery trajectories.

Interestingly, Clorox only returned to profitability after the incident when they finally received their insurance proceeds—underscoring the importance of financial preparation alongside technical readiness.

Making Resilience Part of Your DNA

Embedding resilience isn't about perfection. It's about developing organizational reflexes that activate automatically during crisis.

By treating resilience as an ongoing practice rather than a project with an end date, organizations develop the capacity to bend without breaking when faced with unexpected challenges.

And in today's threat landscape, that flexibility might be the difference between a bad week and a catastrophic year.

TL;DR: Color-coded reports won't save your company; shifting toward impact-driven, financially-informed cyber resilience strategies—and practicing recovery muscle memory—just might.