Cognitive Dissonance in Cybersecurity

The Silent Threat Fueling Ransomware Risk

‍

Cybersecurity leaders are accustomed to dealing with external threats like nation-state actors, criminal syndicates, AI-enhanced malware, and the relentless pressure of securing complex digital ecosystems. But one of the most insidious threats we face originates inside our own organizations and, sometimes, within ourselves. It’s called cognitive dissonance.

This psychological friction—the tension between what we know to be true and what we want to believe—can quietly undermine even the strongest security programs. In the age of AI-accelerated malware, cognitive dissonance isn't just a human factor issue; it's a strategic risk.

As CISOs, understanding this dissonance within ourselves and our teams, and learning to recognize and mitigate it, may be one of the most valuable leadership tools we possess.

The Gap Between Belief and Reality

Cognitive dissonance in cybersecurity usually manifests as a contradiction between the organization's actual risk posture and the story leaders tell themselves about it. This gap creates a false sense of security, and ransomware groups exploit that gap every day. Now, I am sure everyone reading this is quietly saying to themselves, this doesn't apply to me. Remember, we are all human and make mistakes. We manage risk in dynamic environments where we don't always control the technical or operational decisions being made. Sometimes we accept this loss of control as the norm, which can lead to cognitive dissonance.

Common forms of dissonance include:

"We're Not a Target"

Executives often convince themselves that attackers only care about big brands or critical infrastructure. Yet data shows that ransomware gangs increasingly target mid-market and lightly defended environments, especially those with high availability needs. Every business with data, customers, cash flow, or intellectual property is a target. Another point to remember is that you may not be the actual target of the attack; you may be a stepping stone to the actual target through your connection to them. When you're evaluating a customer, do you have a current inventory of your attack surface connections, and do you truly understand the data being accessed and the level of permissions associated with that access?

This "we're not important enough" narrative provides false comfort while attackers are actively scanning for exactly these types of organizations—those who believe they're too small to matter but are large enough to pay a ransom or provide access to bigger targets.

"We Already Have Good Controls"

Security investments can lull leadership into believing they're protected. But having tools is not the same as having mature processes, trained personnel, or tested controls. Ransomware attacks routinely bypass technologies that organizations swore would stop them. We continually hear about defense-in-depth, which is a roadmap for building resilient security programs and enterprise environments. However, everyone's approach to reaching this objective will be different depending on their environment. The key is to remember that having Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), or any other security technology that is continuously 100% perfect, is why we advocate for a defense-in-depth approach.

The dissonance emerges when leaders point to their security stack as proof of protection while ignoring evidence that these same technologies are being bypassed in real-world attacks. Having controls is necessary but not sufficient—the critical question is whether those controls are properly configured, actively monitored, and regularly tested against adversarial tactics.

"Our People Are Trained"

Annual security awareness training creates a dangerous sense of accomplishment. Organizations check the compliance box and assume their human attack surface is hardened. Meanwhile, attackers are conducting sophisticated social engineering campaigns that exploit cognitive biases, authority manipulation, and urgency tactics that basic training never addresses.

The dissonance lies in equating training completion rates with actual behavioral change. Phishing simulation click rates might look good in quarterly reports, but they don't measure whether employees can recognize sophisticated business email compromise, deepfake CEO fraud, or help desk social engineering attacks. True security culture requires ongoing reinforcement, realistic scenario-based exercises, and psychological understanding of how humans actually make decisions under pressure, not just annual checkbox training.

"We Have Backups"

Perhaps the most dangerous form of cognitive dissonance in ransomware defense is the backup fallacy. Organizations invest in backup solutions and assume they have a recovery capability. The dissonance emerges when leaders confuse having backups with having tested, verified, and rapidly accessible recovery processes.

Attackers know this gap well. They routinely target backup systems first, encrypting backup repositories, deleting backup catalogs, corrupting integrity verification, and compromising backup administration credentials. When ransomware strikes and organizations discover their backups are also compromised, or that restoration will take weeks rather than hours, the cognitive dissonance shatters catastrophically.

The question isn't whether you have backups, but whether you've tested recovery under realistic crisis conditions, whether your backup systems are properly segmented and protected, and whether your recovery time objectives actually match business requirements. Most organizations have never honestly answered these questions.

"We'll Know When We're Under Attack"

Modern security operations centers and SIEM platforms create confidence that attacks will be detected quickly. The cognitive dissonance appears when organizations assume visibility equals detection, and detection equals timely response.

Sophisticated ransomware operators deliberately move slowly, operating within normal business patterns to avoid triggering alerts. They compromise systems during busy periods when security teams are overwhelmed with routine alerts. They disable or tamper with logging and monitoring before deploying ransomware. By the time organizations "know" they're under attack, encryption may already be complete.

The average dwell time before ransomware deployment can be weeks or months. During that period, attackers are exfiltrating data, mapping your environment, identifying your crown jewels, and positioning for maximum impact. The belief that "we'll see it coming" conflicts with the reality that you might only notice after it's too late.

Bridging the Gap: From Dissonance to Resilience

Recognizing cognitive dissonance is the first step toward building authentic resilience. Here's how security leaders can bridge the gap between belief and reality:

• Challenge Your Assumptions Regularly: Conduct red team exercises and penetration tests designed not to validate your controls but to find where they fail. Assume breach and test whether your detection, containment, and recovery capabilities actually work under adversarial conditions.

• Measure What Matters: Move beyond compliance metrics and vanity statistics. Track mean time to detect real attacks, not simulated phishing tests. Measure actual recovery time for critical systems, not backup completion rates. Understand your true attack surface, not just the one documented in your asset inventory.

• Embrace Uncomfortable Truths: When threat intelligence shows your sector is being targeted, when attack reports show controls being bypassed, when incident response firms share lessons learned—listen. Don't rationalize why it won't happen to you. Ask what you need to change to ensure it doesn't.

• Test Relentlessly: Annual disaster recovery tests aren't sufficient. Organizations need comprehensive incident response planning that includes monthly tabletop exercises, quarterly recovery process testing, and continuous attack simulations. The gap between belief and reality only closes through repeated validation under realistic conditions.

• Build Honest Reporting Culture: Create environments where security teams can report near-misses, control failures, and gaps without fear of punishment. Cognitive dissonance thrives in cultures where bad news is unwelcome. Resilience thrives in cultures where honest assessment is valued over false confidence.

The Strategic Risk of Self-Deception

Cognitive dissonance isn't just a psychological curiosity, it's a strategic vulnerability that attackers actively exploit. Ransomware operators understand that organizations lie to themselves about their security posture. They count on the gap between what CISOs believe about their defenses and the actual effectiveness of those defenses.

When the belief is "we're too small to target," attackers target you precisely because you're not prepared. When the belief is "our controls are sufficient," attackers study exactly how to bypass those specific controls. When the belief is "we have good backups," attackers make destroying or encrypting backups their first priority. The most dangerous belief of all may be "it won't happen to us", a form of optimism bias that every ransomware victim has held right up until encryption began.

Conclusion: Leadership Through Honest Assessment

The path forward requires security leaders to embrace uncomfortable realism over comforting narratives. This means acknowledging that having security tools doesn't mean having security, that compliance doesn't equal protection, that training doesn't guarantee behavior change, and that backups don't guarantee recovery.

It means recognizing that mid-market organizations are targets, that sophisticated controls get bypassed, that trained employees still click malicious links, and that disaster recovery plans often fail under real crisis conditions.

Most importantly, it means building security programs based on evidence rather than assumptions, tested capabilities rather than theoretical protections, and honest assessment rather than wishful thinking.

The organizations that survive and thrive in today's threat landscape aren't those with the most expensive tools or the most impressive compliance certifications. They're the ones whose leaders have closed the gap between what they believe about their security and what's actually true—and built resilience based on that honest foundation.

Cognitive dissonance is the enemy hiding inside your own perceptions. Recognizing it may be the most important security control you never knew you needed.

READ MORE:

https://halcyon.ai/resources/whitepapers/ransomware-resilience

‍