Cyber Security Looking Ahead to 2026: What Organisations Need to Be Ready For

From Frameworks to Reality: The Operationalisation Gap

One of the most persistent challenges organisations face is not a lack of frameworks, standards, or guidance – but the ability to operationalise them effectively, particularly beyond the organisation’s boundaries.

Andrew highlights how third-party risk management remains a weak point for many organisations, especially when commercial pressure overrides security intent:

“Some organisations struggle to implement third-party risk management effectively because due diligence is treated as a one-off onboarding formality, expedited due to pressure from procurement and business owners who are keen to onboard suppliers swiftly. Commercial timelines and delivery urgency put pressure on teams to rush key stages such as triaging suppliers or security assessments and cut corners. This can lead to reduced scrutiny, reliance on self-attestations alone, or acceptance of unresolved security gaps to avoid delaying contracts.”

This challenge is often rooted in mindset. When third-party risk is framed as a hurdle to overcome rather than an ongoing business risk, meaningful assurance quickly erodes:

“This occurs when third-party risk is viewed as an initial ‘checkbox exercise’ rather than an ongoing business risk that can evolve over time. This results in organisations entering relationships with limited visibility of actual control maturity and little leverage once contracts are signed.”

As regulatory scrutiny increases and supply chains become more interconnected, this approach is becoming increasingly unsustainable. Andrew points to a more integrated path forward – one that aligns commercial objectives with security outcomes:

“Organisations can address this by aligning procurement incentives with risk outcomes, including minimum security and resilience requirements in contracts before granting access or sharing data, and embedding ongoing monitoring and assurance throughout the supplier lifecycle.”

In 2026, organisations that fail to embed this thinking into procurement and supplier governance are likely to find themselves exposed not just operationally, but also reputationally and regulatorily.

Maturity Is Built on Measurement, Not Maturity Models

While third-party risk highlights execution gaps, Dan’s perspective refocuses the discussion on foundations. As cyber security programmes grow in scope and complexity, maturity is less about adopting the latest tool or framework and more about establishing repeatable, measurable control environments.

Dan’s advice to organisations looking to mature their cyber security posture is clear:

“Ensure you establish strong foundations of control and measurement which will enable you to define, implement and measure incremental improvement.”

For organisations still early in this journey, he outlines a pragmatic and scalable approach:

“Start by establishing a control library that works for the scale and complexity of your organisation.”

“Use one of the established recognised frameworks (NIST CSF, ISO, ISF SOGP etc.) as the basis for your library and augment and configure controls as needed – but keep it as simple as possible.”

However, controls alone are not enough. Ownership, engagement, and governance are what turn documentation into operational resilience:

“Define clear ownership of controls and engage proactively with stakeholders to ensure owners are ‘bought in’ to the approach.”

Measurement then becomes the enabler of informed decision-making:

“Define measures for the key subset of controls you need to monitor on a regular basis.”

“Establish a framework for assessment of actual performance against the control baseline.”

Crucially, Dan stresses sustainability, a theme that will only grow in importance as cyber programmes expand:

“Implement control maintenance, monitoring and assessment processes that you’re equipped to handle. Consider assessing a subset of controls on a quarterly basis to minimise the burden on contributors.”

And finally, maturity must connect back to leadership and business outcomes:

“Establish cadence with senior management using a style and terms that they can become familiar with and support – with investment in improvement linked to business outcomes.”

By 2026, organisations that cannot clearly demonstrate how cyber controls perform and how that performance links to risk and value will struggle to justify investment or regulatory confidence.

The Role of AI in Cyber Security, Assurance and Risk Management

CRMG Co-Founder Simon adds another dimension to the conversation – one that many organisations are actively exploring, often with a mixture of optimism and uncertainty: the role of artificial intelligence in cyber security, assurance, and risk management.

“Like many, I have mixed emotions about AI. There’s excitement around its potential and what it could mean for CRMG, alongside a sense of FOMO. At the same time, I worry about inflated claims that position AI as the answer to our cyber security woes, and about what it’s really doing at a time when integrity already feels in short supply. AI can help streamline the mechanistic elements of cyber-related audit, assurance, and risk management without significant controversy. Things like minute-taking (subject to straightforward verification), audit interview support, and creating templated reports based on clear, bucketed and verified content are sensible use cases.”

However, when it comes to risk judgement and prioritisation, Simon is clear that AI remains no substitute for human experience.

“Risk contextualisation is an area where AI is currently no replacement for a seasoned risk practitioner or an engaged business stakeholder. Business context and potential impact aren’t static, and they’re critical in turning a control weakness into a prioritised risk. That’s a dimension AI will struggle with, unless it has access to large, verified data sets around impact and loss trends over time.”

He also highlights the need for caution when using AI to draw conclusions about control effectiveness.

“AI’s ability to infer the extent of control implementation from operational data should always be treated with care and must be verified. While it may be able to spot trends a human would struggle to identify, this is closer to advanced data analytics than something entirely new. The key is access to large, reliable data sets and proven techniques.”

For Simon, the most important mindset shift is how AI is positioned within organisations.

“Think of AI as a novice that needs nurturing, support, and challenge. It should never be relied upon alone. The conundrum is that AI used in assurance has to be assured. The AI used to assure the AI that is used to assure also has to be assured!”

Simon is clear that his views are not fixed, and recognises the challenge ahead.

“In a world where Shadow AI risks becoming the new Shadow IT, that’s a lot easier said than done. The upside is that there are some very big brains working in this space and we’ll need them.”

The Professionalisation of Cyber Security: A Shift Few Are Talking About

While operational maturity and governance dominate many cyber discussions, CRMG Co-Founder Nick Frost highlights a more structural change beginning to surface – one that could reshape the industry itself.

Looking ahead to 2026, he points to the growing momentum behind licensing parts of the cybersecurity profession:

“One of the most significant shifts beginning to surface in 2026 is the move towards licensing parts of the cybersecurity profession. Whilst countries – such as Singapore, Ghana, Malaysia – have started movements in this area, it is still at an early stage.”

The rationale behind this shift is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore (need to check below – does it make sense as I don’t want to edit too much of Nicks response but not sure if my editing is making it not make sense):

“Professions that are subjected to licensing for a reason – when poor decisions or sloppy workmanship might result in widespread harm. Cybersecurity now sits squarely in that category.”

As cyber roles continue to influence critical infrastructure, public trust, and national resilience, expectations around accountability are rising:

“Cyber roles increasingly influence public trust, critical infrastructure, the health of individuals, and even national resilience. Yet you could argue that entry standards and accountability remain relatively low.”

Licensing is not about restricting the profession wholesale, but about recognising the risk attached to certain roles:

“Licensing won’t apply to every cyber role overnight, but for certain critical positions it offers a clear way to raise minimum standards, improve consistency, and introduce real accountability.”

Nick’s conclusion reflects a broader trajectory facing the industry:

“As cyber risk continues to scale, regulation will inevitably follow, and licensing is a natural next step in the professionalisation of cybersecurity.”

By 2026, this shift could have profound implications – not just for practitioners, but for organisations hiring, governing, and relying on cyber expertise