How to Evaluate What Actually Proves Resistance
Most security programs were designed around activity tracking and compliance, not real-world adversary behavior.
As environments become more dynamic and identity-driven attacks continue to rise, many organizations still evaluate their posture using outdated criteria: dashboard metrics, completed patches, closed tickets, and the volume of vulnerabilities scanned.
This report examines how security confidence is breaking down and what security leaders should prioritize instead: validation over assumptions, active defense interruption, lateral movement testing, attack path elimination, and responsiveness to real-world exploitability.
A Preview of How 750 Security Leaders Responded
- 93% of CISOs believe they’ve taken the right steps to prevent a breach
- 12% have validated EDR effectiveness in the last 3 months
- 26% test whether their SOC detects and interrupts real attack techniques
- 11% confirm or remediate known exploited vulnerabilities within 24 hours
Takeaways From the Report
- Why traditional security dashboard and completion metrics are breaking down
- The stark contrast between high executive confidence and low validation rates
- The 2026 security verification criteria that actually matter
- Why scans and rescans confirm fixes but leave attack paths wide open
- Common remediation mistakes that reduce backlogs while exploitable conditions remain
- Practical guidance for proving defenses hold under real-world conditions
Download the Report
Learn how security leaders are shifting from assumed security to verified confirmation based on true exploitability, lateral movement testing, automated attack-path chaining, and measurable risk reduction.
Not seeing the form? Open the standalone form .