{"id":241910,"date":"2026-07-10T03:21:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-10T07:21:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/testing.news-you-need.com\/index.php\/2026\/07\/10\/why-ceos-will-pay-for-the-next-breach\/"},"modified":"2026-07-10T04:05:10","modified_gmt":"2026-07-10T08:05:10","slug":"why-ceos-will-pay-for-the-next-breach","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/testing.news-you-need.com\/index.php\/2026\/07\/10\/why-ceos-will-pay-for-the-next-breach\/","title":{"rendered":"Why CEOs Will Pay for the Next Breach"},"content":{"rendered":"

Why CEOs Will Pay for the Next Breach<\/a><\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.cybersecurity-insiders.com\/why-ceos-will-pay-for-the-next-breach\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Publish Date: 2026-07-10 03:21:00<\/a><\/p>\n

Source Domain: www.cybersecurity-insiders.com<\/a><\/p>\n

Author: <\/a><\/p>\n

Using an unordered list, summarize the following article with between 4 and 8 key points. <\/p>\n

Last December, Park Dae-jun, the chief executive of Coupang\u2019s South Korean business, resigned. A data breach had exposed the personal data of nearly 34 million customers, almost its entire user base. Park said he was stepping down to accept \u201cgrave responsibility\u201d for the breach.\u00a0
\nHis resignation followed South Korean government investigators discovering that no one had pulled off a never-before-seen, impossible-to-stop attack. A former engineer who knew the system\u2019s weaknesses walked back in through a virtual door the company forgot to close. Investigators called it a management failure, not a technical one. The blame fell on the CEO, not the CISO.
\nIn other words, someone at the top made decisions, or failed to make them, that left millions of people exposed. Boards are starting to connect those dots, and they are looking higher up the org chart.
\nMisplaced Blame
\nFor years, business leaders pointed at the CISO when something went wrong. CISOs own the security program, so they own the outcome. The problem with that reasoning is that they don\u2019t own the decisions that actually determine whether an organization is secure.
\nCISOs don\u2019t set the budget. They don\u2019t decide how much risk the business is willing to accept. They can\u2019t force other business units to comply with security policies when those units have different priorities. They present the potential risk and how to mitigate it to the board, then leave it to leadership to decide the next course of action.
\nCyber outcomes reflect those decisions, which means accountability has to follow the decision-making power. Underinvesting in security is a leadership choice, not a CISO failure. And in most organizations, the person holding that decision-making power is the CEO.
\nWhy the Reckoning Is Happening Now
\nBoards didn\u2019t use to see a breach as their problem. That\u2019s changing as the financial and reputational damage becomes too big to put on IT\u2019s shoulders. A breach that exposes tens of millions of customers doesn\u2019t just create a legal headache. It creates negative headlines, moves stock prices, and triggers regulatory scrutiny. CEOs are answerable for all of that.\u00a0
\nWhile boards ask the harder questions before a breach, regulators ask them after one occurs. Governments worldwide are treating cybersecurity failures as evidence of corporate negligence rather than bad luck.
\nThat pressure is reshaping the CISO job description. I\u2019ve always believed the CISO\u2019s role is to give leadership clear visibility into risk. Then it\u2019s up to the CEO to decide what to do about it. Without a mandate from the top, security strategies stall at the proposal stage.
\nTaking Accountability
\nBuilding accountability into a company\u2019s operations can be hard. It starts with how organizations measure and compensate executive performance. If the board ties the CEO\u2019s compensation to revenue growth without accounting for security outcomes, the message to the organization is clear: security is not a business priority.
\nThat has to change. Boards should define specific, measurable security expectations and hold CEOs responsible for meeting them. That includes establishing thresholds with real consequences for failing to act on known risks.
\nCEOs also need to mandate Zero Trust across the enterprise. I introduced the Zero Trust security model 15 years ago while working as an analyst at Forrester Research, and have spent every year since making the case that Zero Trust is a leadership decision, not a technology purchase. It\u2019s a strategic decision that establishes how the organization treats risk. It says we assume a breach will occur, so our focus is on containing it.
\nStop Scapegoating the CISO
\nPark Dae-jun\u2019s resignation changed Coupang\u2019s internal accountability structure. It demonstrated that when boards force CEOs to own cybersecurity outcomes, they create an incentive structure that aligns cybersecurity with business priorities. A government investigation declared a massive breach a management failure, and the CEO resigned to accept responsibility. Clearly, something has shifted.\u00a0
\nOrganizations don\u2019t change until the people making decisions feel the consequences of those decisions. For cybersecurity, that moment is arriving. Boards are paying attention. Regulators are paying attention. And CEOs who haven\u2019t treated security as a core business responsibility are running out of time to start.
\nThe CISO\u2019s job isn\u2019t to absorb blame. It\u2019s to give leadership the visibility it needs to make smart decisions. What leadership does with that visibility is on them.
\n\u00a0<\/p>\n

Join our LinkedIn group Information Security Community!<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Why CEOs Will Pay for the Next Breach https:\/\/www.cybersecurity-insiders.com\/why-ceos-will-pay-for-the-next-breach\/ Publish Date: 2026-07-10 03:21:00 Source Domain:…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":241911,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurity-insiders.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/CEO-breach-failure-accountability.png","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[30,24],"class_list":["post-241910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-cybersecurity","tag-breach","tag-cybersecurity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/testing.news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241910"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/testing.news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/testing.news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/testing.news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/testing.news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=241910"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/testing.news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241910\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":241912,"href":"https:\/\/testing.news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241910\/revisions\/241912"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/testing.news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/241911"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/testing.news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/testing.news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=241910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/testing.news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=241910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}