Recommended Free Tools
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Panaseer’s sixth annual Security Leaders Peer Report points to an operational problem: security controls can exist without being checked often, connected to usable evidence, or translated into timely decisions. In its survey of 400 enterprise security leaders, Panaseer reports that 84% of respondents’ organizations experienced a breach caused by control failures in the 12 months through September 2025. The results describe those respondents—not all CISOs or enterprises—and suggest why cyber risk increasingly has to be managed within everyday security and business workflows.
What the sixth CISO report is—and what its numbers mean
Panaseer describes its 2026 Security Leaders Peer Report as its sixth annual report. It says it surveyed 400 enterprise CISOs, Directors of Information Security, and Heads of Cyber GRC. The figures below are the publisher’s survey findings; the available description does not establish that the sample represents all enterprises or security leaders.
The report’s “sixth” refers to the edition of Panaseer’s annual report, not a separate category of CISO or a universal measure of the profession. Its central concern is whether organizations can establish that controls are present and working, and respond when they are not. Panaseer’s introduction says the report examines “the full impact of control failures and why resilience is now a core measure of cyber maturity.”
How control failures become breach risks
Panaseer reports that 84% of surveyed organizations had a breach caused by control failures during the 12 months through September 2025. Among organizations that were breached, 75% had two or more control failures occur together. These figures do not show that every breach had the same cause; they point to the possibility that weaknesses can combine rather than appear in isolation.
#1 Best Overall
The report names familiar operational gaps such as missed patches, mishandled data, and unrestricted privileged access. A control intended to address one of these risks is not assurance by itself: someone must verify its coverage and operation, notice when it fails, and ensure the right owner acts. Panaseer says just 25% of respondents test controls weekly or more often, while 77% consider manual control assurance unfit for the current threat landscape.
Why more security tools may not mean better visibility
Panaseer’s respondents reported an average of 61 security tools and 58 reports or dashboards per enterprise team. Yet 65% said they feel overwhelmed by fragmented data, and 61% said their control environment is too complex to manage confidently without automation. Tool counts alone do not show whether an organization has effective coverage or can act on what its systems report.
Rank #2
Visibility gaps remain consequential: 54% of respondents said control failures are discovered only after an incident, and the same share said they lack a way to know whether controls are in place and working at any given time. Panaseer also reports that 42% identify poor visibility into control effectiveness as their largest controls concern. The practical issue is whether signals from existing systems can be reconciled into a current, actionable view—not simply whether another dashboard or product can be added.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11How audit and evidence work consume security capacity
Panaseer reports an average of 28 internal and external audits per organization each year, with an average of eight working days to prepare for each audit request. These are survey averages, not a standard audit schedule or a legal requirement. Preparation time will depend on the audit’s scope and the organization’s evidence practices.
Half of respondents describe demonstrating control effectiveness as a major or disruptive challenge; 42% say gathering audit evidence is difficult and time-consuming. In addition, 66% say traditional audits do not fit fast-changing threats. Together, these findings place evidence production inside the security operating burden: teams must show not only that a policy or control exists, but what it covers and whether it worked at the relevant time.
Why board reporting is part of the risk workflow
Respondents said they spend 34% of the working week collecting, analyzing, and presenting security data. Only 38% of CISOs said they are truly confident reports to boards, risk teams, and regulators are clear and comprehensive. Panaseer also reports that 48% struggle to link control performance to business impact, while 43% identify senior executives’ lack of understanding or appreciation of cyber resilience as a barrier.
That gap matters because a control status is not yet a business decision. A useful account of risk needs to connect the affected control or asset to the business function exposed, the plausible operational consequence, and the action or decision needed. The survey identifies a translation challenge; it does not establish that one reporting format will work for every board.
What the report says about AI and cyber priorities
Panaseer reports that 77% of respondents believe AI-driven threats are outpacing their teams’ ability to respond. This is a perception reported by survey participants, not a measurement of attack growth. Another 40% identify improving defenses against AI-powered attacks as a top strategic priority for 2026, and 76% expect current security and risk models to be almost unrecognizable within five years. The latter is an expectation, not a confirmed forecast.
The report’s operational implication is that attention to emerging threats does not remove the need to verify basic controls. KPMG’s 2026 report offers separate context on the integration of CISO responsibilities with business operations, including third-party risk and non-human identities such as AI agents, service accounts, and machine credentials. Ben de Bont, ServiceNow’s chief information security officer, argues in that report that threat intelligence and third-party risk should not live in silos, and describes integrating live threat feeds into vendor workflows. This is context about supplier risk, not independent confirmation of Panaseer’s survey results.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to assess a control-assurance approach
The survey does not rank products or prove that a particular platform would have prevented reported breaches. For a CISO assessing an assurance process or tool, the report’s concerns suggest asking practical questions before choosing an approach:
- Coverage: Which controls, assets, identity types, business units, and suppliers are included—and which are outside scope?
- Evidence freshness: Are checks continuous, frequent, or point-in-time? How quickly does a failed check reach someone able to act?
- Data integration: Can the process reconcile evidence from existing systems, or does it create another disconnected source?
- Ownership and remediation: Who receives a failure signal, who can fix it, and how are remediation and escalation tracked?
- Business translation: Can the output connect a control gap with operational impact and a decision for leadership?
- Auditability and independence: What evidence is retained, how is it verified, and is the assessment independent of the vendor providing the tooling?
These are evaluation criteria derived from the report’s stated problems, not findings that one method or vendor performs best.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What the sixth-annual framing ultimately signals
Panaseer’s findings frame cyber resilience as a matter of execution as well as technology: controls need reliable checks, evidence needs to be usable, and risk information needs to reach people who can make or carry out decisions. The survey supports that reading among its respondents; it does not establish a universal trend across every organization or prove that workflow changes alone will prevent breaches.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
