Andrew Power, Head of UK&I at Tricentis, on why the right approach to AI can deliver the foundation for more resilient, predictable systems

Artificial intelligence is reshaping software delivery in financial services. Code that once took teams weeks to develop can now be generated and deployed in a matter of hours. This isn’t just about faster delivery; it changes the fundamentals of how software is built and how it behaves in production.

Financial institutions have moved quickly to integrate AI across core systems, from customer operations to anti-money laundering (AML) and software development to capture efficiency and innovation gains. UK parliamentary evidence shows adoption is already widespread, with the majority of firms using AI, and more planning to follow.

But as adoption spreads and becomes more embedded within key systems, so does exposure. Risk is no longer confined to individual defects, but shaped by how quickly those defects can spread across interconnected environments.

AI has removed the limits on how quickly software can be created, but not on how confidently it can be trusted, and financial institutions can now generate and deploy code faster than they can safely validate it.

This creates a new paradox: AI is both accelerating the pace of software change and increasing the speed and scale at which failures can materialise.

Machine-Speed Failure

AI-driven development shortens the distance between change and consequence. Software updates can move through the pipeline from creation to production with significantly less friction. However, this also reduces the time available to identify, flag and contain any issues before they have an impact.

AI-driven software changes don’t just move fast, they scale fast. Unlike traditional failures, these are systemic risks. A single misstep in an AI-generated update can propagate unpredictably.

For financial services, this is especially significant when key systems are deeply interconnected, spanning complex layers of infrastructure, integrations, and third-party services. Even a minor defect can propagate quickly across systems, amplifying its impact.

What would once have been contained can now escalate, cascading across systems and causing wider disruption that affects customers, operations and, in some cases, market activity. In financial services, this is not just a technical issue but a business risk with direct implications for customer trust, regulatory compliance and financial stability. The challenge is no longer simply identifying defects but maintaining confidence in what is being deployed.

This risk is already being felt across the sector. Institutions are accelerating delivery to meet customer expectations and competitive pressures, but often without corresponding advances in validation. Tricentis’ research shows 68% of financial services organisations anticipate outages or serious incidents due to poor software quality.

Regulatory Pressure for AI is Increasing

The issue is also drawing attention from regulators. Earlier this year, the UK Treasury Committee warned that current approaches to AI in financial services are inadequate and could expose customers and the wider system to “serious harm”, highlighting the need for stronger guardrails, clearer accountability and more robust oversight to deploy it safely.

Traditional resilience frameworks were never designed for systems evolving in real time, and AI can no longer be treated as a marginal technology risk. It must become central to how organisations manage and assess resilience.

This marks a shift from software quality being an engineering concern to a board-level issue of operational resilience. If machine-speed change is the new operational hazard, then failure to address it becomes a strategic issue rather than a technical one. With that in mind, financial leaders must acknowledge AI’s dual role as both a driver of risk and a mechanism for preventing it.

AI as Both a Safeguard & Source of Risk

AI also offers the most effective and scalable way to manage the risks it introduces. Advanced AI-driven validation, continuous monitoring and risk-prioritised testing can identify issues earlier than any manual process, helping reduce the likelihood they reach production.

In effect, the same AI that accelerates software creation must now be applied to validation and governance – operating at the same speed and scale.

The same capabilities that facilitate rapid software production can be applied to validation and governance, continuously evaluating system behaviour, detecting anomalies and prioritising testing based on potential business impact, rather than volume. This allows organisations to move beyond rigid approaches and towards more adaptive, responsive quality models that more accurately reflect the way AI behaves.

Instead of relying on standard periodic testing cycles, systems can be validated on an ongoing basis. This enables earlier intervention before issues escalate.

AI can also help organisations better understand the complexity of their own systems. By analysing dependencies across applications and infrastructure, it becomes possible to identify which processes are most critical and where failures would have the greatest impact.

From Acceleration to Control

There is a clear mismatch in how financial organisations approach AI. While many are leveraging AI to accelerate development, far fewer are evolving their validation and governance to keep pace, and it’s in this gap that risk emerges.

This is the “confidence gap”, where organisations can create software faster than they can safely deploy it.

To address this imbalance, firms must treat software quality as a core component of their AI strategy. Development and validation must move forward together. Governance must adapt to continuous, AI-driven change. This requires a move from static testing and coverage metrics to continuous, risk-based validation, where software is assessed in real time based on potential business impact.

If AI is the engine driving software creation, validation must act as the braking system – built in, not bolted on at the end. At machine speed, gaps in control become points of failure. The aim is not to slow innovation, but to ensure it progresses in a way that is sustainable and safe. When validation keeps pace with development, firms can move quickly and competitively, whilst maintaining control over how risk is introduced and managed.

This is a change we are seeing across large enterprises adopting AI-driven quality approaches, where validation, monitoring and governance are increasingly orchestrated together rather than treated as separate processes.

Preventing the Next Outage

The financial sector has already seen how quickly failures can escalate in complex, interconnected environments. In March, an IT error at Lloyds Banking Group exposed the private financial information of nearly half a million customers, prompting the bank to issue £139,000 in compensation.

Such incidents aren’t isolated: over the last two years, more than 33 days of unplanned banking outages have been reported to Parliament, underlining the scale of the issue.

As AI increases the velocity of change, it also raises the stakes for getting it wrong. But the irony is that it also provides the tools needed to prevent these failures from happening in the first place. AI is both contributing to the risk of outages and becoming the most effective way to prevent them.

By applying AI to continuous validation, monitoring and risk detection, organisations can spot issues earlier, understand their potential impact and intervene before disruption occurs. This shifts the focus from reacting to outages to preventing them, and it’s where the paradox becomes constructive. AI doesn’t have to be a source of instability.

With the right approach, it can become the foundation for more resilient, predictable systems. Those that fail risk trading innovation for instability. In the AI era, speed without confidence is simply another form of risk.

Learn more at tricentis.com

  • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Fintech & Insurtech

Vincent Guillevic, Director of Fraud Labs at Entrust, argues companies that treat identity as a continuous thread rather than a single checkpoint will be better positioned to reduce losses and protect customers

Identity verification and tackling fraud began as a face-to-face process, built on human trust. Opening a bank account involved meeting a banker in person and from there, trust was established because both parties could see and interact with each other directly in branch.

Fast forward to the digital age and a lot of services have moved online. Identity verification has therefore shifted from in-person checks to remote identity verification. Today, we’re in an era where identity is now central to every interaction we have online.

Fraud has followed the same trajectory. Much like a burglar would test every possible entry point rather than just the front door, fraudsters probe every stage of the customer journey. They look for weaknesses at onboarding, during login, and throughout ongoing transactions and data requests.

That challenge has intensified in recent years. AI has given fraudsters faster, sophisticated and scalable tools. Deepfakes can bypass checks, AI‑generated documents can appear real, and phishing and impersonation attacks can now be automated at scale.

Once a fraudster gains access to a legitimate account, the damage escalates quickly. Global losses from account takeover (ATO) fraud were projected to reach $17 billion in 2025, up from $13 billion in 2024. While the underlying intent of fraudsters seeking the weakest point of entry, the breadth, speed and sophistication of modern attacks have.

Identity Fraud Patterns Across the Customer Lifecycle

Fraud can occur at any stage of the customer journey. From verifying identity at onboarding to securing connections and fighting fraud in everyday transactions. Each stage introduces its own risks, and attackers adapt their tactics based on where value can be extracted most efficiently.

In 2025, patterns showed a clear distinction between industries targeted for new account fraud and those targeted for account takeover fraud. Businesses that offer immediate incentives such as promotional offers or sign-up bonuses are primarily targeted for new account fraud. In contrast, businesses where accounts accumulate long-term financial or data value face higher levels of ATO.

Industries built around sign-up incentives or instance access experience most fraud at onboarding. For instance, in crypto, 67% of fraud attempts occur during account creation, largely driven by sign-up incentives. Vehicle rental follows a similar pattern, with 67% of fraud taking place at onboarding as attackers use fake identities to gain short-term access to high-value assets. In these sectors, low-friction onboarding creates opportunities to harvest incentives or establish accounts that later become avenues for future money laundering.

Account takeover fraud reflects a different strategy. Rather than creating fake accounts, attackers focus on compromising established accounts using tactics such as stolen credentials, phishing, malware, or social engineering. Entrust data shows this is most common in industries where accounts hold enduring value. In payments, 82% of fraud attempts occur after onboarding, while in professional services the figure is 62%. High-value, long-standing accounts are attractive because they enable fund transfers, loans, and access to identity-rich data, making them more valuable than newly created accounts.

These patterns highlight two critical realities. First, organisations can no longer optimise for one type of risk at the expense of another. Defending a single point in the journey inevitably leaves gaps elsewhere. Second, fraud has become highly professionalised. Modern fraud operations are organised, strategic, and adaptive, moving toward the highest rewards and the weakest controls.

Prevention Must Span the Entire Journey

If fraud can occur at any stage, prevention must operate at every stage. Organisations that implement robust, lifecycle-wide identity strategies save an average of $8 million per year in fraud-related costs. These savings come from detecting threats earlier, more accurately, and beyond a single checkpoint.

There are three areas where that lifecycle approach needs to be strongest.

Get onboarding right

Onboarding is the first opportunity to establish genuine trust. Strong Know Your Customer (KYC) or Know Your Employee (KYE) processes combine document verification with biometric checks such as face recognition or fingerprint scanning to confirm that the person applying is who they claim to be. Liveness detection adds a further layer by distinguishing real users from synthetic identities and deepfakes, which are linked to approximately one in five biometric fraud attempts.

With strong identity verification at onboarding not only reduces immediate fraud, but also limits the downstream damage caused with fraudulent accounts.

Secure existing accounts with continuous authentication

Verifying identity once is no longer sufficient. Continuous authentication, combining multi-factor authentication with biometric re-verification like facial recognition, allows businesses to protect established accounts without creating unnecessary friction for legitimate users.

Crucially, it enables authentication requirements to adapt dynamically as risk levels change, rather than applying the same static check regardless of context. In payments businesses, where most fraud targets the authentication process itself, this adaptability is key to mitigating attacks before losses occur.

Monitor behaviour in real time, not just identity

Device intelligence and behavioural signals make it possible to assess risk based on how users interact with services, flagging unusual login patterns, device anomalies, or out-of-character transactions.

As AI-driven fraud becomes more sophisticated and convincing, behavioural indicators provide another layer of ongoing fraud detection. Focusing monitoring on high-risk actions, rather than only high-risk identities closes a critical gap in traditional defences.

The Window of Opportunity

Fraud has always followed the customer journey. What has changed is the availability of advanced technology capable of tracking, analysing, and responding to threats at every stage. The key question for organisations is whether these capabilities are deployed as a connected strategy or left as isolated controls with gaps in between.

Companies that treat identity as a continuous thread rather than a single checkpoint will be better positioned to reduce losses and protect customers, and preserve the trust that underpins long-term digital relationships.

Learn more at entrust.com and meet the team at IFGS in London on April 21

  • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Fintech & Insurtech

Michele Centemero, EVP Services, Mastercard Europe on why promoting awareness, stronger collaboration and data-sharing, and continued innovation of payments ecosystems, will be critical in reducing the impact of scams and protecting trust in the digital economy

As our world becomes faster, smarter and more interconnected, scammers are evolving in parallel, developing increasingly sophisticated ways to exploit people’s trust. By harnessing new technologies and behavioural insights, they are refining their methods to appear ever more credible and convincing.

While attacks on systems continue, today’s fraudsters are increasingly targeting people, often relying on psychological manipulation to achieve their goals.

Understanding Social Engineering

Many modern scams fall under the umbrella of social engineering,which isthe use of deception and emotional manipulation to influence a person’s behaviour.

In the digital world, cybercriminals use these tactics to build false trust, create urgency or fear, and ultimately trick people into sharing confidential information or taking actions that can cause financial harm to themselves or their employer.

Recent European industry data indicates that social engineering-related fraud and authorised push payments (APPs) – where victims are tricked into sending money to fraudsters posing as legitimate payees – now account for a growing share of overall scam losses[1].

This is directly impacting a growing number of consumers, with the majority of people saying they’ve experienced some form of scam or fraudulent attempt to capture their personal information highlighting why awareness and vigilance are critical for people of all ages.

Education is the First Line of Defence

Protecting consumers and businesses from malicious activity is a priority, and it starts with awareness. When people understand how scams work, they’re more likely to spot the warning signs before it’s too late and be empowered to protect themselves against fraudsters.

Three of the most common social engineering scams to watch out for are:

  • Imposter fraud – Criminals pose as trusted organisations (such as banks, retailers, or government bodies) to pressure victims into sharing personal or financial details. Research indicates over half (53%) of European consumers have been targeted via phone or voice call scams, with social media scams affecting around two in five people, and tech support impersonation tricking roughly one in three.*
  • Phishing – Fraudulent emails, texts, or messages that are designed to look legitimate, often urging immediate action like clicking a link or resetting a password, leading victims to disclose sensitive information or install malicious software. Nearly three in five (58%) have received phishing emails or fraudulent text messages (63%) and QR code scams are on the rise, impacting nearly a quarter of Europeans.*
  • Romance or honeypot scams – Scammers build emotional relationships over time, gaining trust before exploiting it for financial gain. These types of attacks are also widespread, with one in four people (24%) encountering fake profiles, requests for money, or online relationships that lead to financial exploitation. These scams hit younger generations hardest, with 40% of Gen Z and 35% of Millennials affected, compared with 21% of Gen X and 11% of Boomers.*

How Businesses Can Protect Consumers from Scams

With fraudsters increasingly using AI to commit more sophisticated, larger scale attacks, businesses and banks should also consider how they deploy technology to protect customers from bad actors.

The combination of AI, robust identity controls and open banking can help protect consumers from scams, whether across card and account‑to‑account payments or in fraudulent account openings.

Looking at identity controls specifically – take the example of continuous identity verification, a fraud prevention measure that verifies the user is who they claim to be throughout the entire lifecycle journey. This helps to prevent scammers from opening or taking over accounts to apply for credit, create ‘mule’ accounts or impersonate others.

Behavioural biometric data is often used as part of this and can be used to analyse how a user interacts with their device – from typing patterns to on‑screen movements – to flag unusual behaviour.

More in depth, AI powered transaction analysis can also help banks and financial institutions to stay ahead of payment threats. It provides banks with the intelligence needed to detect and stop payments to scammers, using AI and a network-level view of account‑to‑account transactions to enable intervention before funds leave an account.

Staying Ahead of an Ever-Evolving Threat

As social engineering tactics continue to evolve, staying ahead requires a combination of intelligent technology, consumer education, and proactive action from businesses and financial institutions.

While no single measure can eliminate risk entirely, greater awareness, stronger collaboration and data-sharing, and continued innovation of payments ecosystems will be critical in reducing the impact of scams and protecting trust in the digital economy.

*Source: This study was conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of Mastercard from September 8 to September 25, 2025, among 5000+ consumers in the following European markets: EUR: France (n=1,005), Germany (n=1,002), Italy (n=1,016), Spain (n=1,005), UK (n=1,004)

Mastercard: Transforming the Fight Against Scams

Innovation – Our advanced AI-powered Identity insights examine digital footprints and assess unique patterns to detect risk and flag suspicious activity indicative of scams.

Collaboration – We collaborate across industries, partners and organizations worldwide to secure the digital ecosystem, ensuring payments are safe for all. Combating the growing threat of scams demands a collective effort.

Education – We work with and through our collaborators to provide knowledge and tools that help people protect themselves and their loved ones from scams, while also working to destigmatise the experience of being a victim.

  • $12.5bn in losses from U.S. consumer reported online scams in 2023
  • $486bn in global losses from scams and bank fraud schemes in 2023
  • 22% YoY growth in U.S. consumer scam losses suffered in 2023

From sender to recipient, we vigilantly monitor accounts and transactions for any elevated scam risk

Identity insights – Provides actionable identity insights and risk scores for businesses to improve identifying their good customers from the scammers creating “mule” accounts or impersonating someone else with a false identity.

Transaction patterns – Flags suspicious activity across the money movement flow to prevent payments to scammers before it is sent through the real-time analysis of transaction elements.

Account confirmation – Enables account validation to confirm account ownership and validate identity details in real-time through our open banking capability, which draws on the safe exchange of consumer-permissioned data to facilitate frictionless and secure payments.

Learn more at mastercard.com


[1] Joint EBA-ECB report on payment fraud: strong authentication remains effective, but fraudsters are adapting

  • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Digital Strategy
  • InsurTech

Richard Ford, Chief Technology Officer at Integrity360, on why cybersecurity must move beyond control and embrace trust

Cybersecurity has long been focused on building walls, but the biggest threat is already inside. Today, insider risk accounts for nearly half of all data breaches. This isn’t just about malicious actors, it’s about regular employees and trusted contractors who make simple, costly mistakes.

Remote and hybrid working has only intensified the problem. With teams distributed and work happening across cloud platforms and collaboration tools, it’s harder than ever to track what’s happening, let alone why. Although AI tools promise efficiency, they also introduce new vulnerabilities. Employees pasting code into chatbots or bypassing corporate tools to meet deadlines. All seemingly innocent, but highly risky.

Insider Risk

Ransomware gangs know this and are now skipping the technical breach altogether and going straight to the source – a company’s insiders. Whether through bribery or social engineering, attackers are finding that humans can be the weakest link in even the most well-defended environments. Despite this, most security budgets still focus outward.

Traditional tools like data loss prevention (DLP) struggle to keep up with today’s dynamic and unpredictable user behaviour. Meanwhile, simulated phishing tests and punitive training schemes often breed resentment, not resilience. It’s time to rethink the model.

Human Error, Human Fix

We need to stop treating employees as the problem and start making them part of the solution. Enter Human Risk Management (HRM), a behavioural approach to cybersecurity that recognises the complexity of modern work. HRM tools monitor real-world user behaviour, detect anomalies in context, and deliver just-in-time nudges to prevent risky actions before they happen. Instead of punishing mistakes, they help users avoid them in the first place.

Of course, technology alone won’t fix the issue, culture is key. Leadership must champion security as a shared responsibility, not an IT rulebook. Success should be measured by how quickly employees improve, not how often they slip up. Awareness campaigns need to be practical and rooted in real-world behaviour.

Organisations also need to understand how digital transformation has changed the risk landscape. Shadow IT is no longer a fringe issue, it’s how work gets done. Whether it’s a developer using an AI plugin or a marketer sharing files via a personal drive, employees will always find the fastest path to productivity. Security must meet them there, not block the way.

Cybersecurity Built on Trust

The smartest businesses are those that treat identity like infrastructure, and behaviour like a vital data stream. They invest in tools that adapt to people, not the other way around. This means a move away from a surveillance approach and embracing the nuance of human error and design systems that support.

In a world where threats are increasingly internal and AI is both a risk and a tool, cybersecurity can no longer be about control. It must be about trust, and that starts with understanding the humans behind the keyboards.

Learn more at integrity360.com

  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Digital Strategy
  • Infrastructure & Cloud

Pierre Noel, Field Chief Information Security Officer at Expel, on why security with community-based governance is a key business pillar that better positions organisations to become more resilient and target growth

It’s been a particularly rocky start to 2026 for the global cybersecurity landscape. From the Substack data breach to PayPal credential-stuffing attacks in February, we are not looking at IT failures alone. These attacks are balance-sheet events: direct assaults on business value, triggering remediation costs and long-term impacts on financial health. Compounded with the conflict with Iran, leading to potential ramifications in the cyber realm, it’s more important than ever for the C-suite to be aligned on cybersecurity priorities.

Despite this, a glaring disconnect remains in planning and execution. Expel’s research found that while 85% of finance leaders view cybersecurity as a key component of business planning, only 40% express full confidence in security’s ability to align with business strategy. To bridge this gap, CISOs must move from reporting on activity and start reporting on resilience and unit cost.

Translating Alert Volume Into Unit Cost

CISOs must change how they present the value of their operations. CFOs are largely indifferent to technical metrics like the ‘millions of blocks pings’ or ‘SOC alert volume’ – to a finance leader, an alert is simply another form of disruption to daily operations.

To fix this, CISOs should introduce the ‘unit of cost protection’. By breaking down security spend into the cost required for a single transaction or business unit, CFOs can understand and manage it from experience. A tiered approach works best here: high-risk business units justify higher protection costs than low-risk ones. This allows CFOs to treat security as a scalable operational expense rather than a black hole of additional tooling – the kind of framing that also resonates in a boardroom.

Mapping Investment to Business Risk Exposure

Expel’s research shows that while 43% of finance decision-makers are confident that security can prioritise investments based on risk, only 46% are confident that security can deliver cost-efficient solutions. To move in the right direction, CISOs should shift from ‘vulnerability management’ to thinking about ‘business risk exposure’, requiring a different view of how threats unfold over time.

It’s all about asking the right questions. Instead of requesting more firewalls to protect a specific timeframe, start asking for the cost of securing diverse digital ecosystems across an extended risk window. The 2026 Winter Olympics is a good example: Russian-led cyber campaigns began raising concerns months before a single athlete arrived in Italy, proving that risk isn’t a one-day event but an ongoing operational cost.

For European organisations, this framing is increasingly non-negotiable. While NIS2 and DORA help make the cost of under-investment concrete and quantifiable, the upcoming Cyber Resilience Act (CRA), with key reporting requirements starting in September 2026, extends this pressure to anyone manufacturing or selling digital products in the EU. Even for purely domestic UK entities, the new UK Cyber Security and Resilience Bill is moving the goalposts toward these same high standards. Ultimately, CFOs must understand that cybersecurity isn’t just about preventing loss; it’s a prerequisite for safe and secure growth.

The Reputational Multiplier

So those are the questions to ask, but how do CISOs deal with the ‘unknown unknowns’, specifically long-term brand damage? While compliance fines under NIS2 or DORA may be straightforward (and important) to model, they rarely represent the full scope of the potential damage. In such scenarios, CISOs should propose a reputation multiplier: a framework for quantifying the financial fallout of brand damage in a language CFOs know and trust, looking past immediate recovery costs to factor in the long-term implications of re-establishing market trust.

The 2026 CarGurus breach illustrates this well. Impacting 12 million users, the cost wasn’t purely technical; it also came from the stock price dip and marketing spend required to repair the brand. For UK companies, where regulatory scrutiny is heightened, that multiplier effect is even more pronounced. This is the language of a CFO, and it helps CISOs better translate the urgency and relevance of a strong cybersecurity posture.

Standardising the Language of ROI

Closing the gap between CFOs and CISOs needs more than just better data; it needs a shared vocabulary. By standardising the language of ROI, CISOs transform cybersecurity from a vague insurance policy into a transparent value driver fully trusted by finance teams. Move away from complicated defensive jargon toward a unified framework of unit costs, and the gap between the CISO and CFO starts to close.

Security has become a key pillar of business operations, and in the current threat environment, it’s genuinely a community-based governance issue. The organisations that get this right aren’t just more resilient. They’re better positioned to grow.

Learn more at expel.com

  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Digital Strategy
  • Infrastructure & Cloud

Dr. Yvonne Bernard, CTO at Hornetsecurity, on meeting the challenge of managing the speed of AI adoption and harnessing its defensive capabilities while mitigating the risk of uncontrolled adoption

The past year has been defined by acceleration. Threat actors rapidly embraced automation, AI, and social engineering. Scaling their tactics at unprecedented speed, while defenders raced to keep pace. Historically, defensive resilience evolves in step with attacker innovation, but in 2025 that balance began to falter.

In an analysis of over 6 billion monthly emails, Hornetsecurity’s Security Labs found that the volume of sophisticated threats grew faster than most security teams could adapt to. Malware-infected emails soared by 131%, scams increased by nearly 35%, and phishing attempts – powered by access to advanced AI – rose by 21% from the previous year.

Typically, attacks, even at volume, are easily filtered by good firewalls and secure email gateways. But the sophistication and AI-led nature of 2025’s boom made it even harder for organisations to defend themselves. The question now is: can security teams and businesses wrestle back control?

Evolving Cyberattack Landscape

​​AI enhances efficiency and precision. As such, cybercriminals use it to launch faster, more convincing and adaptive attacks, ranging from deepfakes to credential stuffing. As an example, there is a concerning trend of attackers increasingly using ‘MFA bypass kits’ to create deceptive login pages. These pages capture not only the user’s credentials but also have logic built in to handle MFA prompts as well. ​​The unsuspecting user is then passed to the real login page for the target service and meanwhile the ‘kit’ grabs a copy of the user’s session token. This allows the attacker to impersonate the person and access their data. ​​​​​

Examples of such kits include Evilginx (open source) and the W3LL panel. Protecting against these attacks can be challenging, as they are adept at bypassing MFA safeguards. Threat actors often use compromised LinkedIn accounts, for example, to gain access to substantial information and connections. This enables them to impersonate trusted business connections. Paired with the weaponisation of Agentic AI, this will magnify existing vulnerabilities within an organisation, while introducing new ones that defy traditional containment models.

As it stands, the lack of oversight within organisations on the extent of AI’s adoption by cybercriminals has enabled the emergence of ‘Ransomware 3.0.’ Ransomware has evolved past simple encryption and exfiltration, with this next phase focusing on LLM-driven orchestration and a shift to data integrity manipulation.

To counter AI-accelerated compromises and ‘Ransomware 3.0’ in 2026, organisations must adopt a Zero Trust-based cyber resiliency strategy. This requires businesses to implement strong, non-phishable machine authentication, strict least-privilege access, and constant monitoring to protect the integrity of the data that users and AI agents can access. It should become the baseline expectations rather than aspirational goals for this year.

The Secret Value of ‘Least Privilege’ Access

Another strategy to proactively improve cybersecurity defences in 2026 is to enforce the principle of ‘least privilege’ access. This tactic grants users access only to the data that’s needed for their role. Limiting excessive access is important for preventing the potential for widespread data exposure and damage in the case of an account compromise.

Businesses, however, must strike a balance over access; if it’s too strict, it can hinder productivity and lead to shadow IT issues. Getting this balance right when it comes to privileged access is where sophisticated permission managers are invaluable tools to work with. They streamline the process and remove the guessing game of who and what to grant access to, thereby ensuring, in the case of an attack, that the entire organisation won’t be brought to its knees.

How CISOs are Adopting ‘Resilience, not Perfection’

The rate at which AI is advancing means not every organisation will be equipped with the tools or the know-how to tackle every AI-inspired attack. But as the saying goes, ‘prevention is better than cure’. It’s better to create a strong security culture than to continually chase after the next best tool. 

Organisations can’t strengthen their resilience without involving every single person under their umbrella. That’s why CISOs must continue to invest in cybersecurity awareness programs.

These should include simulated AI-phishing attacks (phishing remains the number one attack vector) to test users and enable them to apply learnings from the modules.

If any user clicks on a phishing email, they should receive additional training at that very moment, to cement the learning. Over time, a good training system should automatically identify users who rarely fall for such attacks and reduce the training they receive while making the simulations they do receive more difficult. Conversely, giving persistent offenders additional bite-sized training and simulations can help improve security outcomes over time.

The key challenge for 2026 is managing the speed of AI adoption and harnessing its defensive capabilities while mitigating the risk of uncontrolled adoption. But with excellent training, cyberattack practice runs, and the adoption of Zero Trust principles, organisations will find themselves in a strong position.

About Dr. Yvonne Bernard

Dr. Yvonne Bernard is the CTO of Hornetsecurity by Proofpoint, Proofpoint’s business unit leveraging the Hornetsecurity product suite dedicated to managed service providers (MSPs) and small to mid-sized businesses (SMBs), providing next-generation cloud-based security, compliance, backup, and security awareness solutions that help companies and organisations of all sizes around the world.

Learn more at hornetsecurity.com

  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Data & AI
  • Digital Strategy

Chris Gunner, vCSO at Thrive – a leading NextGen MSP/MSSP, delivering global AI, cybersecurity, cloud, compliance, and digital transformation managed services – on how CISOs can position their cyber strategy to to become part of how a business navigates uncertainty

Quantification of cyber risk is a growing trend. While this can be genuinely useful, in practice it is often misunderstood or over-applied by security leaders. It can range from an arbitrary figure to attempting to model every possible risk on the register in a Monte Carlo simulation. The focus can fall on the mechanics of quantification, rather than how financial decision-makers actually use the information.

Think of the CFO – they don’t walk through every penny in the budget. Instead, they usually focus on the board-level levers that can materially affect the business. These often include three key areas: strategic optionality, removing friction from capital events and avoiding shocks and smoothing operating costs. Security conversations should be anchored the same way.

The Importance of Strategic Optionality

If faced with a credible one-year growth plan, CFOs may recommend a one-year office lease despite a 20% premium. This is because it maintains the option later of moving or re-contracting once the growth trajectory becomes more visible. Like most strategic decisions, it is about preserving flexibility in the face of uncertainty, even if that flexibility comes at a short-term cost.

If we apply this to a cyber context, there are often businesses that have taken a calculated gamble with their existing business strategies. While the plan is sound, there is a chance it might not land as expected. When they require security services, the choice between a ‘standard’ and ‘premium’ SOC frames the decision as one of optionality rather than security spend. Paying more now to preserve the ability to adapt later down the line. A simple illustration is incident response. An on-call retainer with defined response times can look more expensive than ad hoc support. Until an incident occurs and procurement becomes the bottleneck. In those moments, flexibility is often far more valuable than marginal savings achieved earlier.

Removing Friction from Capital Events

For CFOs, especially those operating in the alternative investment space, the focus is on structuring capital events. As opposed to managing day-to-day operational costs. One of the most painful points in that process is due diligence. The careful exchange between acquirer and target that aims to provide enough information for each to price risk, without giving the entire game away.

CISOs can materially influence how smooth or painful that process becomes. The most effective support often comes from understanding upfront what the diligence process will look like and preparing accordingly.

For example, they might develop executive-level ‘Security at ACME’ overviews to sit alongside more detailed trust centre or technical reports. Being available to diligence teams for interviews, and for example clearly articulating which services are outsourced to an MSSP, and why, builds credibility between those executive teams.

Decision-makers often don’t look at penetration test reports at a deal level. They are assessing whether the organisation understands its own control environment. A well-prepared CISO who can clearly explain why certain controls exist acts as a trust amplifier during transactions.

It is often the difference between a diligence process that closes cleanly and one that drifts. Two organisations can have similar maturity. Yet the one that can respond within a day with clear, consistent evidence reduces follow-up questions, avoids uncertainty premiums in pricing discussions and prevents security from becoming a late-stage negotiation point.

Avoiding Shocks and Smoothing Operating Costs

For any individual who has worked with a finance partner to define a departmental budget will know that predictability often takes precedence over absolute cost. Contract value can be secondary to payment terms, renewal timing or the ability to forecast spend with confidence.

CISOs can align with this by looking to reduce unplanned operating expenditure. In addition to understanding the cost structure of their controls by communicating with the technical pre-sales engineer, procurement and account teams.

A good example is cyber insurance. While often purchased directly by finance teams, many policies are relatively off-the-shelf and provide access to services the security team already operates or has under contract. Other policies include notable exclusions for the events most likely to occur. Such as a ransomware incident without business interruption cover. In many cases, these gaps can be addressed in-policy with a flat fee or a more predictable cost model.

The value here extends beyond risk transfer and into more predictable costs: replacing reactive spend with planned expenditure.

Aligning Cyber Conversations to Board Priorities

Across all of the above examples, the common thread is that the board is rarely asking security to prove its value in isolation, and is surprisingly comfortable with uncertainty. But they are asking whether the cyber papers support better decisions, fewer constraints and more predictable outcomes for the business as a whole.

CISOs who frame their priorities in those terms will find their conversations move away from justifying individual controls and towards understanding how security choices shape the organisation’s ability to respond to change. In that context, cyber becomes part of how the business navigates uncertainty, rather than a specialist function defending its budget. Speaking the board’s language, ultimately, is less about converting cyber risk into pounds and pence. It is more about understanding which levers matter at that level and showing how security choices influence them.

Learn more at thrivenextgen.com

  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Digital Strategy

Obrela’s Dr. George Papamargaritis (EVP MSS) and Dr. Konstantia Barmpatsalou,  (Blue Team Support Manager) on why embracing a risk-led cybersecurity model will leave financial organisations better positioned not just to meet regulatory requirements but to strengthen resilience, protect customers and uphold the trust that is so essential to the future of financial systems

Cybersecurity in the financial sector was once viewed as a compliance-driven discipline. But as attackers have increasingly targeted institutions with sophisticated, persistent and often internally driven campaigns, it has become a strategic priority.

According to the Digital Universe Report H1 2025, financial services were the second most targeted industry globally, accounting for 19% of all observed cyberattacks. This reflects both the sector’s value to adversaries and the complexity of the digital ecosystems it now operates within.

Regulatory frameworks such as the FCA and PRA’s operational resilience rules, the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and NIS2 have strengthened baseline protections. However, the report’s findings demonstrate that regulation alone cannot deliver true cyber resilience. Institutions must adopt a strategic, risk-led approach that looks beyond compliance to understand real threats, behaviours and operational dependencies.

Tailored, Internal and Stealthier Threats

One of the most striking insights from the report is how targeted financial sector attacks have become. Industry-specific security risks now represent 32% of all incidents in the sector. This is an indication that adversaries are designing attacks using detailed knowledge of financial operations, from trading workflows to payment systems.

Internal activity is also a major concern. Suspicious internal activity accounts for 26% of detections across financial services, reflecting the frequency of compromised accounts, misused privileges and lateral movement. For a sector historically focused on defending the perimeter, this shift highlights the need for deeper visibility into user behaviour and identity-driven risks.

The wider threat landscape reveals adversaries are moving away from overt, signature-based attacks. In H1 2025, brute force activity made up 27% of global alerts, while vulnerability scanning accounted for 22% and known malicious indicators for 20%. Notably, direct malware payloads dropped to 0% of trending alerts, replaced by fileless techniques and living-off-the-land methods that bypass traditional defences.

For financial institutions, this is a challenge. Many compliance requirements still centre on endpoint protection, patching and malware controls. These will of course, remain important, but they cannot address threats that are increasingly behavioural, stealth-driven and identity-focused.

Operational Complexity

The financial sector’s cyber risk is intensified by its expanding operational footprint. Cloud adoption, open banking, digital identity models and extensive third-party ecosystems have all created new points of exposure. Financial services operate within a global digital infrastructure that is both vast and increasingly interconnected. This level of complexity cannot be effectively protected through compliance checklists alone.

Regulators are recognising these realities. DORA’s emphasis on ICT third-party risk, operational resilience testing and continuous oversight reflects the need for more proactive, intelligence-driven approaches. But DORA still only sets a minimum standard. True resilience requires institutions to move beyond regulatory expectations and embed cybersecurity into broader business strategy.

Strategic, Risk-Led Cybersecurity

A risk-led approach begins with understanding the threats that pose the greatest risk to operations and customers. Financial institutions remain priority targets for groups such as FIN7, TA505, Cobalt Group and various state-backed actors. Their tactics, such as credential harvesting, remote access tools, web-injection frameworks and lateral movement, are specifically designed to exploit the digital fabric of financial services.

This evolving threat profile puts identity and behaviour at the heart of cyber defence. With credential-driven and internal threats so prevalent, institutions must prioritise behavioural analytics, continuous authentication and zero-trust models that verify users and devices contextually rather than relying on static controls.

Strategic cyber resilience also needs to have continuous assurance. Traditional audits, annual testing and scheduled penetration exercises cannot keep pace with rapidly evolving threats. Leading institutions are shifting toward continuous control monitoring, automated attack simulation and persistent adversarial testing. These practices align with the Bank of England’s CBEST framework and demonstrate a sector-wide move toward ongoing, intelligence-led assurance.

Crucially, cyber risk must be treated as an operational issue, not just a technical one. Embedding cybersecurity into enterprise risk management, financial planning, product development and board oversight is essential. This integrated approach also mirrors the direction of FCA and PRA regulation, which increasingly emphasises governance, accountability, and resilience across the entire organisation.

Beyond Compliance

Financial services underpin national economies and public confidence. As digital ecosystems grow and adversaries become more sophisticated, the sector faces a dual challenge: meeting rising regulatory expectations while defending against complex, targeted attacks. It is clear that cybersecurity must evolve from compliance-driven activity to a strategic capability built on intelligence, continuous assurance and behavioural insight.

Institutions that embrace this risk-led model will be better positioned not just to meet regulatory requirements but to strengthen resilience, protect customers and uphold the trust that is so essential to the future of financial systems.

Learn more at obrela.com

  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Digital Strategy
  • Fintech & Insurtech
  • InsurTech

Dan Nichols, Chief Technology Officer at virtualDCS, on why cloud resilience in the financial services sector hinges on shared accountability and an assume-breach philosophy

A powerful catalyst for transformation, the cloud is reshaping how organisations compete in the financial services sector. Beyond significant cost savings and flexibility, leaders are eager to unlock the potential of AI-driven insights, intelligent automation, and real-time business modelling. And, in a space governed so strictly by data sovereignty and privacy policies, the cloud’s ability to localise, encrypt, and control data has made it a key enabler of compliance and customer confidence.

But as threats become more frequent and sophisticated – with attackers now targeting shared platforms and partner supply chains – organisations can no longer rely on their own defences alone. For true digital resilience, shared accountability, collective readiness, and clear governance across every cloud touchpoint are equally non-negotiable.

All Eyes on the Money

The industry sits at a valuable intersection of data, technology, and finance. A combination that makes it uniquely attractive to attackers. It holds some of the world’s most sensitive data, directly underpins the flow of global capital, and operates through deeply complex and interconnected systems. With every integration increasing the risk of exposure. Ultimately, the attack motivation is as simple and relentless as it is in most sectors: monetary gain. Cybercriminals target institutions precisely because of the value at stake and the speed at which disruption translates to loss.

How the Threat Landscape is Evolving

Ransomware groups may see insurers and payment providers as high-yield targets. They understand even seconds of downtime can induce multi-million pound losses. Under pressure to protect customer trust and avoid regulatory penalties, some firms may choose to pay in order to restore their service quickly. This dangerous perception only encourages repeat targeting and paves the way for damage to spread even further. Yet it remains a common response tactic among many.

At the same time, the rise of supply chain and third-party attacks has made it possible for criminals to bypass even the most well-defended cloud environments. By exploiting shared platforms, managed service providers, and cloud-hosted applications, perpetrators can move laterally across multiple organisations at once, amplifying both the reach and impact of their attacks. In other words, infiltrating one vendor’s weakness can cripple an entire network in one carefully coordinated strike. And, since some firms may overlook the cloud’s shared responsibility model – presuming end-to-end security sits solely with their cloud provider – multiple blind spots can inevitably emerge, creating easy openings to exploit.

In an environment where boundaries blur and dependencies multiply, traditional perimeter-based defences are no longer enough. Hybrid and multi-cloud infrastructures demand continuous visibility, faster detection, and coordinated response across every partner and provider. The goal is not simply to prevent breaches, but to withstand and recover from them collectively. It’s about recognising that in today’s ecosystem, no financial institution is secure in isolation.

Inside the Ransomware Economy

Evolving beyond the scattergun attacks of the past, ransomware now operates as a professionalised, profit-driven ecosystem, where malicious actors collaborate, trade intelligence, and lease attack tools much like legitimate software vendors. The rise of ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) has even lowered the barrier to entry, giving less skilled affiliates access to ready-made payloads and automated encryption kits in exchange for a percentage of the ransom.

What makes it especially destructive is the precision and psychology behind the attacks. Rather than randomly striking, attackers conduct weeks of reconnaissance – learning behaviours, studying employee hierarchies, and identifying systems most critical to operations. They often infiltrate through phishing emails or compromised credentials, quietly moving laterally through the network to gain elevated access. Once embedded, they disable defences, exfiltrate sensitive data, and target backup repositories before finally encrypting production systems.

At that point, the goal shifts from technical control to financial coercion. Victims are locked out of their systems and presented with a ransom note demanding payment, sometimes in cryptocurrency, in exchange for a decryption key. Increasingly, the threat includes public exposure of stolen data – a tactic designed to pressure leadership into paying to protect their reputation and customer trust. Even when ransoms are paid, recovery is rarely clean: data may be incomplete, corrupted, or resold on the dark web, and repeat targeting is common once an organisation is identified as a payer.

It’s this blend of stealth, strategy, and human manipulation that makes ransomware so difficult to defend against. By the time the encryption begins, attackers have already spent weeks ensuring recovery options are limited. This background isn’t designed to scaremonger, but to highlight why resilience must start long before an attack ever reaches the endpoint.

The Foundations of Ransomware Resilience

Ransomware resilience isn’t achieved through a single product or policy – it’s the outcome of strategic, technical, and cultural alignment. Financial institutions, in particular, must approach it as a continuous process of readiness: Anticipating compromise, containing impact, and restoring normality quickly and transparently:

Assume-Breach Philosophy

The first step is shifting from a defensive mindset to an assume-breach philosophy. In practice, this means recognising that even the most sophisticated systems can and will be breached – and building architectures and response strategies designed to limit damage when this happens. It’s a pragmatic approach, grounded in the reality that attackers are increasingly sector agnostic. No organisation is too small or too secure to be targeted, but the financial sector remains a favourite because it offers both high disruption value and potentially significant monetary reward.

Building meaningful resilience, therefore, demands layered defence and disciplined execution. The goal is to slow attackers down at every stage – detecting them early, limiting lateral movement, and ensuring business continuity when systems are disrupted. Behavioural analytics and continuous monitoring can surface and neutralise subtle anomalies that would otherwise go unnoticed – such as phishing, spear phishing, and malware, with email still the number one entry point for ransomware.

Zero Trust & MFA

Meanwhile, zero trust policies and multi-factor authentication methods add a second layer of protection, blocking unauthorised access even if credentials are compromised.

When incidents do occur, a well-practised response framework ensures action is fast and coordinated, minimising disruption across critical systems, with the ability to switch to secure replica environments to keep operations running while remediation takes place. Secure, immutable, air-gapped backups underpin it all, providing a safety net that guarantees recovery can begin from a clean and uncompromised state.

Human readiness is equally critical. Technology can contain an attack, but only people can recover from one effectively. Regular simulation exercises, incident rehearsals, and cybersecurity awareness training help teams respond calmly and cohesively, transforming response from reactive to instinctive. This operational maturity is reinforced by strong governance. Frameworks such as DORA, NIST, and ISO 27001 provide the structure to align technical teams, compliance leads, and executive decision-makers around shared resilience goals. When combined with skilled practitioners and clear accountability, they embed security into ‘business as usual’ – moving resilience from a strategy to a sustained organisational capability.

Why Multi-Layered Backup is Critical

When ransomware strikes, the speed and integrity of data recovery determine whether disruption lasts minutes or days – and whether the impact cascades through wider global markets. As the last and most decisive line of defence when every other control fails, it’s also fundamental to customer trust and compliance. Yet too often, backup is treated as a static safeguard rather than a dynamic resilience layer.

Since modern ransomware often seeks out and encrypts traditional backups first, a single backup copy or centralised repository is no longer sufficient. True resilience today depends on a multi-layered approach – combining offsite or cloud-diverse storage, immutable data copies that cannot be altered or deleted, and isolated environments to protect against lateral movement.

How frequently these backups are tested is equally important. Too often, financial institutions only discover weaknesses when recovery is already underway, at which point strategies can’t be magically strengthened, and it becomes a race against the clock to minimise downtime and reputational fallout. Regular, automated recovery testing changes that dynamic. It not only confirms that files can be restored, but provides verifiable assurance that systems come back online in the correct order, data dependencies remain intact, and teams have the muscle memory to act quickly and confidently when the worst happens.

The Power of Shared Accountability

In a digital economy so deeply interconnected, no organisation operates in isolation. This is especially true in financial services, where supply chains and service providers form the backbone of day-to-day operations. While this interdependence is a strength in many ways, it also means resilience is no longer defined by how well a single institution can defend itself, but by how effectively every partner in its ecosystem upholds their part of the security chain.

This is where shared accountability becomes critical. It recognises that cloud providers, managed service partners, and financial institutions each have distinct but complementary roles to play in securing data, systems, and infrastructure. When accountability is clearly defined – and when partners collaborate rather than operate in silos – visibility improves, incident response accelerates, and the risk of systemic failure decreases.

Shared accountability also extends beyond contractual obligation. It’s about building a culture of collective readiness: sharing intelligence, rehearsing joint incident scenarios, and supporting smaller or less-resourced partners to raise their security baseline. The result is a unified entity capable of anticipating, absorbing, and recovering from disruption together.

Looking Ahead

To view cyberattacks as inevitable might seem pessimistic to some, but it’s an unfortunate truth that no amount of investment can eliminate risk entirely. In an era where threats are growing in both scale and sophistication, readiness becomes the true differentiator – particularly in such a high-stakes sector. For financial institutions, that means embedding security into culture, strengthening connections across supply chains, and continually testing their ability to withstand and recover as a united ecosystem. Only then can resilience become a strategic advantage rather than a defensive necessity, and unlock the cloud’s transformative potential with absolute confidence.

Learn more at virtualcds.co.uk

  • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Data & AI
  • InsurTech

Ben Francis, Insurance Lead at Risk Ledger, on navigating cyber threats by reinforcing security from the inside out

Cyber insurance has evolved from a straightforward risk transfer mechanism into an integral component of enterprise risk strategy. As a result, the conversation has shifted beyond simply securing coverage to embracing three foundational elements: transparency in risk exposure, accountability for security measures, and active collaboration throughout the digital ecosystem.

Rather than asking ‘are you covered?’, the more pertinent question has become ‘can you demonstrate measurable risk reduction?’. Insurers and insureds alike are recognising that what matters now is how well an organisation understands and manages its digital exposure, especially across its extended supply chain. Recent data reveals that 46% of organisations experienced at least two separate supply chain-related cyber incidents in the past year, a clear sign that exposure often lies beyond direct control. 

From Risk Transfer to Risk Visibility 

In recent years, the cyber insurance market has matured significantly. Once viewed as a reactive safety net to cushion the financial impact of attacks, it is now becoming a proactive tool for managing and mitigating risk. This shift is partly driven by insurers, who increasingly expect and work with organisations to demonstrate strong security practices and a nuanced understanding of their threat landscape, including risks deep within their digital supply chains; an area where many businesses still fall short.

At the same time, the industry faces a growing challenge from systemic cyber risk within their portfolios, as many businesses rely on the same cloud providers, payment systems and digital platforms, increasing the chance of a single point of failure. Insurers must gain visibility into how policyholders are connected, not only to suppliers but to each other. Tools and frameworks that map and monitor these interconnections will be essential to avoid underestimating the wider impact of seemingly isolated cyber events.

Mapping Beyond Third Parties

It is no secret that cyber attackers often target the weakest link in a supply chain. These are not always direct suppliers, but fourth, fifth or even sixth-tier vendors that have indirect but critical access to systems and data. Unfortunately, many organisations lack visibility beyond their first tier, creating blind spots that attackers can easily exploit. From an insurance perspective, this presents a clear challenge. If an organisation cannot account for who it is connected to, it cannot adequately quantify its risk and neither can its insurer. Mapping these extended connections is more than just a technical exercise; it means actively practiced risk governance and responsibility. Insurers increasingly want to know how their policyholders are identifying and managing indirect dependencies, particularly in sectors like financial services and retail where disruption can ripple across entire markets.

Collaboration as a Risk Strategy 

One of the more underappreciated aspects of cyber resilience is the role of peer collaboration. Unlike physical incidents, cyber threats rarely exist in isolation. A single compromised vendor can impact multiple organisations simultaneously, a fact that has been highlighted by high-profile supply chain attacks such as SolarWinds and MOVEit

As a result, businesses need to think beyond their own perimeters and adopt a more collective mindset. This includes building relationships with industry peers, sharing threat intelligence and participating in sector-wide initiatives aimed at improving visibility and preparedness. 

In highly regulated sectors, such as insurance, this collaboration is increasingly being encouraged by oversight bodies. Frameworks like the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) in the EU and initiatives from the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK are pushing for more transparency around third-party risk. In this context, openness is no longer optional; it will be a regulatory expectation. 

For insurance providers, greater collaboration between policyholders also means better data on emerging threats and more accurate portfolio management. For businesses, it offers a chance to anticipate vulnerabilities that may not yet have hit their own networks but are affecting others in their industry. 

Proactive Transparency Builds Trust 

Organisations that take a proactive, transparent approach to cyber risk management are more likely to secure cover and potentially favourable terms, not just in terms of premiums, but also in access to additional services such as forensic support, incident response sources and legal counsel. 

Demonstrating a mature cyber posture is not about claiming perfection. No organisation is immune to breaches. What insurers are looking for is evidence of a structured approach: the existence of incident response plans, robust governance, effective supply chain risk management, and above all, an honest view of risk. 

A Shift in Mindset 

Ultimately, our understanding of cyber insurance must keep evolving. It should not be treated as a simple checkbox exercise, but as a collaborative relationship between insurers and the organisations they support – one built on shared insight, clear communication, and a drive for continuous improvement.

The organisations best equipped to navigate today’s threats will be those that prioritise transparency. Not only does it lead to stronger protection, but it also builds a culture of accountability that reinforces security from the inside out.

Learn more at riskledger.com

  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Digital Strategy
  • Fintech & Insurtech
  • InsurTech