Yet, the typical response to such incidents follows a familiar pattern. There is shock, followed by forensic analysis, a search for the overlooked vulnerability, and a scramble to reinforce what has already been compromised. The irony is that few organisations ask the more pertinent question: Not how do we prevent this from happening again, but how do we ensure that when it does, we can recover without existential damage?

This distinction is what separates those who are merely compliant from those who are resilient. Companies that have embraced cyber resilience as a strategic imperative understand that security is not a binary state of breach or no breach, but a spectrum of preparedness and adaptability. Haliburton, a global industrial player, provides a telling example. A cyberattack disrupted its operations, exposing the fragility of digital dependencies even in sectors long accustomed to risk mitigation. Likewise, the auto dealer outage illustrated how a single attack can send ripples across an entire industry, halting business transactions on a scale that few had fully accounted for. These incidents reinforce the principle that security should no longer be framed as a battle to be won, but as a condition to be managed.

Ransomware, in particular, has become the endemic digital affliction of modern business. In the past year, 60% of global organisations experienced ransomware attacks, with 90% of attackers employing multi-extortion tactics to increase their leverage. It is no longer just about encrypting data; it is about compromising backup systems, threatening to leak sensitive information, and exploiting weak recovery mechanisms. Nearly 57% of ransomware attacks target and disable backup systems, forcing victims into a corner where paying the ransom is the least destructive option. The financial burden is growing, with average ransom payments exceeding $600,000 and many surpassing $1 million. These are not just technical failures; they are business crises that demand a re-evaluation of how risk is perceived at the highest levels of leadership.

One of the most telling insights into the current state of cyber risk management is the widening gap between vulnerability disclosure and exploitation. Known vulnerabilities are now being targeted within the first 24 hours of disclosure, according to findings from CISA, while secondary waves of attacks often begin within two to three weeks. Traditional patching cycles, long the cornerstone of remediation strategies, are proving inadequate. With over 40,000 vulnerabilities reported in 2024 alone—a 38% increase from the previous year—it is becoming impossible for even the most well-resourced security teams to keep pace. The reality is that the assumption of containment is no longer viable. Organisations must instead design architectures that can withstand failure without systemic collapse.

The reluctance of many corporate boards to fully embrace cyber resilience is not solely a financial issue. It is a cognitive and structural challenge, rooted in the legacy mindset that views cybersecurity as an IT responsibility rather than a business continuity imperative. Cybersecurity spending is still largely driven by compliance requirements rather than operational necessity. Prevention remains a more palatable investment because it implies control, whereas resilience acknowledges an uncomfortable truth: that failure is not just possible, but inevitable.

This perception gap explains why resilience strategies often remain underfunded compared to preventative measures. Firewalls and endpoint security provide a visible sense of defence, but response playbooks, cyber drills, and recovery architectures are less tangible—until they are needed. And when they are needed, their absence is felt acutely. This is not an abstract argument. A 2023 study by the World Economic Forum found that organisations with well-defined incident response capabilities reduce the financial impact of breaches by nearly 50%. Yet, many still resist shifting resources toward response and recovery because it requires confronting the reality of an attack before it happens.

Shifting the boardroom conversation on cybersecurity requires reframing it as a business function rather than a technical concern. The companies that have internalised this shift treat cyber resilience as they do financial risk management or supply chain resilience—areas where uncertainty is built into the strategy rather than ignored. The lessons from other domains are clear: financial institutions prepare for market downturns, manufacturers build redundancies into their supply chains, and crisis communications teams develop contingencies for reputational damage. Cybersecurity must adopt the same model. It is no longer about preventing every attack, but ensuring that when an attack occurs, it does not dictate the fate of the organisation.

The evolution of cyber threats will only accelerate. The rise of generative AI has not only lowered the barrier to entry for attackers but has also made cybercrime more targeted, efficient, and scalable. Attack surfaces are expanding, and adversaries are leveraging automation at a pace that traditional defence models cannot match. This is why security leaders must not only advocate for stronger defences but also demand that resilience becomes a non-negotiable part of business strategy. Organisations that fail to adapt will not just suffer breaches; they will find themselves unable to recover from them.

The companies that survive the next decade of cyber threats will not be the ones that spend the most on prevention. They will be the ones that accepted reality early, that understood resilience was a better investment than perfection, that knew the difference between being impenetrable and being adaptable. Cybersecurity is no longer about avoiding disruption; it is about ensuring that disruption does not become destruction. Those that build cyber immunity will be the ones left standing.