Cybersecurity seems to be in an identity crisis.
It sits at a crossroads in the modern business psyche. Is it a form of digital insurance or a strategic investment that yields tangible returns? How should we see cybersecurity?
If it's insurance, the aim is damage control. We spend to protect against potential damage, hoping we never need to call upon it. If it’s an investment, then we expect a measurable return: improved efficiency, customer trust, competitive edge, more sales.
This binary, however, is dangerously narrow. Security isn’t neatly one or the other. Instead, it’s both. And too often, organizations fail to treat it properly as either.
They spend reactively, communicate poorly, and then wonder why the board doesn’t see value in cybersecurity.
Let’s take a look at both scenarios:
When Security Is Treated Solely as Insurance
Most companies have long approached cybersecurity with an insurance mindset. The logic is simple: "We invest just enough to reduce the fallout—should the worst happen." It’s a posture rooted in defensiveness. Install firewalls, check compliance boxes, update anti-virus software, and carry on with business as usual.
We’ve all done that.
But this view is fundamentally flawed. Real insurance is based on calculated risk and structured recovery. It’s not just “we hope nothing bad happens.” It’s knowing what might happen, how it might happen, and what it’ll cost when it does.
Cybersecurity, when underfunded and misunderstood, can’t actually provide the protection expected of it. Worse still, in most cases, there’s no clarity on what exactly is being insured. Organizations are often unsure which assets matter most, which attack vectors are most likely, or even how much damage a breach would realistically cause.
You’re securing blind.
This creates a dangerous illusion of safety. And when breaches occur, leadership is left with the realization that they were never truly “covered” in the first place.
The Elusive ROI of Security-as-Investment
On the other end of the spectrum, the push to treat security as an investment brings its own set of challenges. Investments imply growth, returns, and momentum. But what does growth look like in cybersecurity? How do you show the impact of a firewall that prevented 300,000 intrusion attempts? Or the absence of a ransomware incident?
Herein lies the paradox: the better your security program performs, the more invisible it becomes. Silence is success. But silence doesn’t speak well in board meetings.
This asymmetry makes it difficult for CTOs and security leaders to demonstrate ROI in terms that matter to CEOs and CFOs. Boards seek profit, not protection. Security, when framed as cost-avoidance, rarely competes with revenue-generating initiatives; unless leaders are blessed with the rare magical advantage of translating security outcomes into business-relevant language.
The Clash at the Executive Table
This misalignment breeds tension.
CTOs and CISOs, working from a risk-reduction paradigm, advocate for security budgets as essential safeguards. Meanwhile, finance and business leaders view such requests as cost centers with blurred benefits.
What follows is a tug-of-war. Security teams justify spend by invoking hypothetical threats; business leaders push back with demands for metrics and “proof.” Somewhere in the middle, effective security strategy is lost.
Until this dynamic shifts, security will remain reactive, under-leveraged, and underappreciated.
Why Security Can—and Must—Be Both
There is a way out. And it begins by rejecting the binary altogether.
Security isn’t either/or. Security should be treated both as insurance and as an investment.
Take a look at your car. Isn’t it insured? You insure your car not because you expect to crash it, but because you value preparedness. Yet you also invest in maintaining it—servicing the engine, replacing tires, tuning the brakes—so that it performs better, lasts longer, and holds value.
The same logic applies to digital infrastructure.
Yes, you need “insurance”: incident response plans, breach readiness, cyber liability coverage. But without real investment—in people, tools, and infrastructure—you’re just buying a policy on a burning house.
No insurer wants that. You can’t insure what’s already broken.
Moreover, smart investment has strategic upsides. In regulated industries, strong security speeds procurement cycles and clears compliance hurdles faster. In B2B SaaS, demonstrating robust security controls shortens deal timelines and builds trust with data-sensitive customers. In high-growth startups, it reduces the drag of later-stage technical debt and breach risk.
The Cost of Doing Nothing
Avoidance is the most expensive option of all. A run-down vehicle cannot be insured, and a compromised system cannot be secured after the fact. When foundational investment is ignored, the business becomes a target—either for attackers or regulators.
The cost isn’t just reputational. It’s operational chaos, legal exposure, customer churn, and prolonged downtime.
At some point, the cost is reduced business. No one, no matter how little they understand security, wants that.
The Path Forward: Maturity Through Balance
Security leadership must elevate the conversation. This means building narratives that combine risk reduction with business enablement. It means defining KPIs that speak to both technical integrity and strategic value—such as reduced time-to-close in sales, uptime stability, developer productivity, and customer retention.
Plus sensitizing executives to understand that silent, well-implemented security is good security.
Ultimately, maturity comes from balance. Security must shield the organization and strengthen it. It must reduce risk and accelerate value. Neither insurance nor investment alone is enough.
It’s time to treat cybersecurity for what it really is: a foundational discipline that spans resilience, trust, and growth.