Danny Z.
Did Your Human Developers Evolve With Your New AI Tools?
The software development lifecycle is undergoing a profound transformation—one marked not by a slow evolution, but by a seismic shift in pace,...
Cybersecurity frameworks are essential. They give structure, shared language, and standardization to an otherwise chaotic landscape. But let’s be honest: no malicious actor has ever been stopped by a framework alone.
From ISO 27001 to NIST CSF and SOC 2, most frameworks were designed for governance, audit-ability, and maturity mapping. They’re excellent tools for internal alignment and regulatory alignment. But that doesn’t mean they reflect how attacks really happen—or how adversaries exploit gaps that frameworks can’t see.
Frameworks are about control categories. Attackers are about control weaknesses.
The Illusion of Safety
When a company achieves a compliance milestone, it often celebrates it as a mark of security. That can be dangerous. malicious actors don’t care whether you’re aligned to CIS v8 or if your ISO scope was certified last quarter. They’re looking for:
-
Unpatched endpoints
-
Misconfigured cloud buckets
-
Over-permissioned identities
-
Employees working around controls to get things done
These are the real-world soft spots. And many of them sit just outside the tidy borders of frameworks.
From the adversary’s perspective, your clean compliance report is a map to what you’re not watching closely.
The Control vs. Culture Conundrum
Frameworks emphasize policies, standards, and controls—but they rarely account for how those are operationalized in day-to-day behavior. This creates a gap between what's documented and what's actually done.
-
Your policy says MFA is mandatory. But people still bypass it for service accounts.
-
You train on phishing annually. But click rates are unchanged.
-
You have a risk register. But shadow IT isn’t logged anywhere.
Malicious actors exploit human behavior and cultural norms, not just technical flaws. The frameworks were never designed to track the informal, messy, lived experience of work. That’s why frameworks alone won’t get you ahead of human risk.
Tactical Visibility vs. Strategic Blindness
Attackers think laterally. They chain together small oversights across teams, tools, and timelines. But frameworks often segment risk: governance is separate from operations, which is separate from human resources, which is separate from third-party vendors. The result?
-
You might have strong third-party policies, but no insight into which vendors use AI or GenAI tools.
-
You have training records, but no data on whether that training changed behavior.
-
You monitor devices, but not how employees rationalize risky shortcuts.
Strategic maturity doesn’t equal tactical resilience. Frameworks tell you if your program is ‘in place,’ but not if it works when the heat is on. Part of it is knowing your behavioural baseline and another part is your cultural norms—these are what people will snap back to under stress or in new situations. That’s real human risk visibility.
What malicious actors Already Know
Let’s look at it from the adversary's angle. They know that:
-
Security teams are under-resourced and stretched thin
-
Policy fatigue is real—most employees don’t read or retain key rules
-
Risk tolerances vary wildly between departments
-
Many organizations are more focused on audits than active defense
To an attacker, your framework-aligned program may be solid on paper, but porous in practice. They’re looking for where intent doesn’t translate to execution.
The Path Forward: Frameworks Plus Culture
We’re not saying toss the frameworks. They’re crucial for structure, reporting, and investment alignment. But they must be supplemented by behavioral, cultural, and operational intelligence:
-
Human Risk Baselines that measure behavior, not just awareness
-
Cultural diagnostics that spot where values and behaviors diverge
-
Resilience testing that blends simulation, social engineering, and cross-team response
-
Risk assurance that includes norms, attitudes, and reporting safety
This is the adversary-aware approach to modern security. And it’s what separates checkbox programs from resilient organizations.
Are You Secured on Paper—or in Practice?
At Cybermaniacs, we help organizations move beyond surface-level compliance and framework-only thinking. Through culture-first diagnostics, behavior change models, and cross-functional risk programs, we enable teams to see what frameworks can’t.
📩 Talk to our team about building an adversary-aware human risk program. Follow us on LinkedIn to keep pace with the future of resilience.
More from the Trenches!
Beware! The Job Seeker’s Nemesis: Recruitment Scams Unveiled
In today's bustling job market, the rise of recruitment scams has become an alarming trend, preying upon the hopes and aspirations of job seekers....
3 min read
What Your Board Isn’t Hearing About Human Risk
The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) now advises boards to view cyber risk as a systemic business issue, not merely a technical...
3 min read
We've Got You Covered!
Subscribe to our newsletters for the latest news and insights.