Flipping the Script: Deception Technology and the Maturation of Assume Breach

A Research Perspective on Modern Cybersecurity Architecture

April 2, 2025

Link To Research Paper Executive Summary

Research Paper Exhibits:

Exhibit A:  Cybersecurity Best Practice Architecture

Exhibit B:  What Could Go Wrong

Exhibits - Explained

• The Left Side reflects industry-standard prevention strategies based on NIST, ISO, and Zero Trust principles. These controls are designed to stop attackers across an almost infinite and ever-changing attack surface — but they require near-perfect implementation to succeed, and even then, gaps remain due to misconfigurations, human error, and emerging threats.
• The Middle Section highlights the consequences when prevention fails — and a breach occurs. At this stage, attackers can move laterally within 62 minutes, and often dwell in systems undetected for 11 to 200 days. During this window, the risk of data theft, ransomware deployment, and operational disruption rises sharply. According to IBM, the average cost of a data breach is $4.88 million globally, and $9.36 million in the U.S., underscoring the urgency of early detection and containment.
• The Right Side prepares for this inevitable moment of failure by using deception technology to surround the finite objectives attackers seek — credentials, privileged access, and sensitive data. By embedding decoys and lures at these key points, deception acts as a backstop to traditional defenses, providing early, high-fidelity alerts that can expose intruders before damage is done — and in some cases, reduce the breach cost to zero.

Abstract:

In today’s volatile threat landscape, the traditional goal of preventing every cyber intrusion has become increasingly untenable. Breaches persist — not because security teams are negligent, but because the attack surface has outpaced the reach of even the most sophisticated controls. This paper explores a growing shift in cybersecurity strategy — led by forward-thinking CISOs — toward an assume breach mindset that emphasizes early detection, operational resilience, and realistic boardroom narratives.

This shift marks a fundamental reframing of the CISO’s role: away from chasing perfection and toward building security programs that expect failure and are architected to recover quickly from it. At the heart of this evolution is deception technology — a preemptive and politically astute tool that acts as a backstop to existing defenses. By placing interactive decoys and high-fidelity lures across IT, OT, and cloud environments, deception solutions detect attacker movement early in the intrusion cycle — often before material damage occurs.

The financial stakes of late detection are rising sharply. According to IBM’s 2024 Cost of a Data Breach Report, the global average cost of a breach is now $4.88 million, rising to $9.36 million in the United States. While these figures reflect the cost of breaches that go undetected for days or weeks, many breaches could incur little to no cost if detected and contained early — before attackers reach their objectives such as data theft or ransomware deployment. Deception technology is uniquely positioned to enable this outcome by surfacing attacker behavior at the moment traditional defenses fail.

Drawing on guidance from leading analysts and public agencies, this paper illustrates how deception enables proactive breach response, reduces attacker dwell time, and strengthens the CISO’s narrative with executive stakeholders. We conclude with a new framework for integrating deception into enterprise security operating models — supporting not only better security outcomes, but also more credible, cost-conscious leadership in the boardroom.

1. Introduction: The Case for Assume Breach

The cybersecurity landscape has undergone a radical transformation. As enterprises extend their operations into cloud, IoT, and operational technology (OT) environments, the traditional boundaries of security architectures have eroded. Attack surfaces are now dynamic and diffuse, leaving defenders in a continuous race against increasingly sophisticated adversaries. In this context, conventional perimeter-based defense strategies, while necessary, are proving insufficient. Despite best-in-class controls — including endpoint detection, identity and access management, zero trust architectures, and threat intelligence platforms — breaches continue to occur with troubling frequency. No single tool can cover every gap in an evolving and shape-shifting attack surface. The result: organizations are increasingly shifting from a “prevent everything” stance to a strategic posture that assumes adversaries will inevitably gain access.

This strategic pivot — often referred to as the “assume breach” model — marks more than just a technical or architectural evolution. It represents a mindset shift for CISOs and their teams. Under the traditional model, security programs are often judged by how perfectly they can prevent incidents — a nearly impossible standard in a world of zero-days, credential theft, and supply chain vulnerabilities. This burden of perfection creates unrealistic expectations and chronic stress within security organizations. Assume breach changes that. It acknowledges that mistakes will happen, that no system is flawless, and that breaches are inevitable. But it doesn’t signal defeat — it signals maturity. By planning for the breach, CISOs can relieve the pressure to be perfect and instead focus on resilience, visibility, and containment. This mindset empowers teams to architect layered defenses that don’t just try to keep attackers out, but catch them quickly once inside.

This is where deception technology becomes essential. When something inevitably slips through — whether it’s a misconfiguration, a phishing attack, or a compromised credential — deception acts as a backstop. Deception decoys, breadcrumbs, and honeytokens lie quietly in wait, embedded across IT, OT, and cloud environments. When attackers interact with these lures, they trigger high-fidelity alerts — often early in the MITRE ATT&CK chain — giving defenders a critical window to investigate and contain the intrusion before damage is done. Recent analysis from leading industry research firms describes deception as a preemptive security control — not just reactive — capable of reducing attacker dwell time, improving signal-to-noise ratios, and in some cases, driving the cost of a breach down to zero. That is, when deception triggers early, the attacker may never reach the sensitive systems or data they were targeting.

For CISOs, this approach is not only technically sound but politically smart. It provides a compelling narrative for the boardroom — one that reframes expectations. Rather than promising impenetrability, CISOs can communicate that assume breach is a mature, realistic posture, and that deception is the safety net that ensures threats are caught early, before reputational or financial damage occurs. The sections that follow explore this evolution in more detail, offering a lens on why prevention alone fails, how deception enables preemptive detection, and how leaders can operationalize this shift to build trust — both inside the organization and with the executive stakeholders who depend on it.

2. Why Prevention Alone — Even with Zero Trust — Isn’t Enough

Over the last 15 years, the cybersecurity world has undergone a seismic shift in architecture and mindset. The rise of mobile workforces, SaaS platforms, and cloud infrastructure made the traditional “castle-and-moat” model obsolete. Security leaders recognized that there was no longer a meaningful or enforceable perimeter. With users, data, and applications everywhere, the idea that anything “inside” the network could be inherently trusted collapsed under its own weight. This realization led to the widespread adoption of the Zero Trust model — a fundamental rethinking of trust and access. In a Zero Trust world, no device, user, or system is inherently trusted, even if it’s inside the network. Every access request must be verified continuously, and access is granted only in the context of known identity, behavior, and risk.

This shift was profound. It forced organizations to modernize identity infrastructure, tighten access policies, and adopt more granular controls. For many CISOs, implementing Zero Trust became a multi-year journey — and a board-level narrative. It was, and continues to be, a necessary evolution. But as transformative as Zero Trust has been, it is not the final destination.

2.1 The New Challenge: What Happens When Zero Trust Fails?

Zero Trust architectures are built to minimize the blast radius of compromise — but they do not make compromise impossible. Misconfigurations, credential theft, insider threats, and unknown vulnerabilities still create windows of opportunity for adversaries. Even mature Zero Trust implementations can be bypassed when attackers obtain valid credentials or exploit trust relationships between systems.

And here lies the dilemma: if an attacker breaches your environment despite Zero Trust, how do you know they’re there? How quickly can you detect them? This is where the Assume Breach mindset becomes essential — and why it is emerging as the next major shift in security thinking, equal in significance to the rise of Zero Trust itself.

2.2 Assume Breach: The Natural Evolution of Zero Trust

Assume Breach does not conflict with Zero Trust — it completes it. Where Zero Trust seeks to prevent unauthorized access, Assume Breach prepares for the inevitable moment when something slips through. This mindset acknowledges three truths:

1. The attack surface is too vast and dynamic to defend perfectly.
2. Security controls, no matter how advanced, can be misconfigured, bypassed, or silently fail.
3. Detection and response must be as prioritized as prevention.

Zero Trust secures access. Assume Breach secures reality — the unpredictable, messy, human, and imperfect reality that CISOs operate in every day.

2.3 Why Detection Needs a Backstop

The missing piece in many Zero Trust environments is high-fidelity, low-noise detection that works when everything else has gone wrong. This is where deception technology plays a pivotal role. Deception tools embed realistic, interactive decoys and lures across IT, cloud, and OT environments — invisible to legitimate users but irresistible to attackers. When touched, these deception assets instantly trigger alerts — often early in the intrusion lifecycle — giving defenders precious time to investigate and respond before damage is done. This capability:

• Compensates for failure elsewhere in the stack
• Detects lateral movement post-authentication
• Drives attacker dwell time toward zero
• Reduces breach impact — in some cases to zero dollars

Unlike traditional detection tools that rely on signatures, heuristics, or behavior anomalies (and generate countless false positives), deception operates as a non-overlapping, proactive detection layer that activates only when something goes truly wrong.

2.4 A Second Mindset Shift for CISOs

Just as Zero Trust required a cultural and architectural shift, Assume Breach requires a mindset shift — one that CISOs must lead. It reframes the goal from “stop every attack” to “spot every attacker.” It accepts the impossibility of perfection and builds systems for resilience instead of just control. When layered on top of Zero Trust, Assume Breach — made actionable through deception — provides a fuller picture of modern cyber defense. It is not an abandonment of Zero Trust principles, but a natural, necessary extension of them.

And just as Zero Trust gave CISOs a powerful narrative for modernizing access and identity, Assume Breach gives them a new story to tell: one about preparedness, visibility, and minimizing impact when — not if — something goes wrong.

3. Assume Breach as a Maturing Strategy

For years, security leaders have quietly acknowledged what breach headlines have long made public: perfect prevention is a myth. Yet only recently has the security community begun to codify this reality into an actionable strategy. The Assume Breach mindset is the formalization of what defenders have known intuitively — that attackers will get in, and that the speed and precision of detection and response are what matter most. This mindset is not a retreat from proactive defense; it is a reorientation of priorities. And critically, it is no longer just a philosophical stance. It is a strategic framework — one now validated by both industry analysts and national security agencies.

3.1 From Analyst Theory to Operational Doctrine

Gartner has been among the first major analyst firms to elevate deception technology from a niche tool to a preemptive security control. In their recent guidance, Gartner positions deception as a proactive detection capability that enables early adversary engagement, improves incident response timing, and reduces the cost of breach by shrinking dwell time. Deception no longer lives in the shadows of the stack; it is recognized as a forward-looking technology that helps organizations “flip the economics of attack.”

This recognition reflects a broader shift in how CISOs and enterprise architects are thinking about detection: not as a last resort, but as a first line of insight. When attackers bypass preventive controls — and they will — early detection is the difference between a close call and a crisis.

3.2 NSA Guidance: Deception in the Real World

That shift from theory to practice is now visible in the public sector as well. In its joint Five Eyes cybersecurity advisory on Detecting and Mitigating Active Directory Compromises, the NSA, in coordination with allied intelligence agencies, explicitly recommends the deployment of Active Directory canaries and honeytokens as a key mechanism for breach detection. In the report, the NSA suggests placing user accounts or password objects in directories like SYSVOL that should never be accessed under legitimate conditions. If these decoy assets are ever touched — through credential harvesting or unauthorized authentication — they provide a high-fidelity signal of compromise, often revealing an attack in its earliest stages. This guidance signals something important: deception is no longer experimental. It has entered the canon of accepted security practice. When both Gartner and the NSA converge on deception as a necessary layer of defense — not as a backup plan, but as a preemptive detection mechanism — the strategy gains credibility, urgency, and momentum.

3.3 Institutionalizing Assume Breach

For CISOs, this convergence presents a compelling opportunity: to operationalize Assume Breach as a formal strategy within the security operating model. It’s a strategy that:

• Accepts that no control is perfect,
• Assumes that mistakes, misconfigurations, and blind spots will persist,
• And builds a detection capability that doesn’t require failure to be visible to end users before it is seen by defenders.

Deception technology becomes the means through which this strategy is realized. It acts as a tripwire woven through critical systems, silently waiting to reveal the adversary when they think they are still undetected. This evolution is not just technical — it’s institutional. Boards, regulators, and stakeholders increasingly expect that organizations not only defend, but prepare. Assume Breach is the clearest articulation of that expectation, and deception is its most effective enabler.

4. Deception as a Preemptive Backstop

The power of deception technology lies not only in its technical precision, but in its strategic placement. It is designed for the moment when something goes wrong — not after the damage is done, but in the narrow and critical window when an attacker first begins to move, explore, and escalate. In this sense, deception acts as a preemptive backstop — a safety net for the security architecture itself. Unlike traditional detection tools that analyze traffic, behavior, or signatures, deception creates an environment where attackers reveal themselves by making a wrong move. And unlike many tools that generate high volumes of alerts, deception operates quietly, producing high-confidence signals with low operational overhead.

4.1 How Deception Works

Deception platforms embed interactive decoys and lures throughout an organization’s infrastructure — from endpoints to cloud workloads, from Active Directory to CI/CD pipelines. These artifacts may include:

• Fake credentials or session tokens
• Decoy database records
• Simulated OT devices or point-of-sale terminals
• Phantom admin accounts in Active Directory
• Breadcrumbs left in developer environments

None of these assets serve a real business purpose — any interaction with them is, by definition, suspicious. This gives deception a unique edge: it detects true adversary behavior without relying on probability, thresholds, or human tuning. When touched, these assets trigger instant alerts, often catching the attacker early in the MITRE ATT&CK chain — during reconnaissance, credential access, or lateral movement stages.

4.2 The Preemptive Advantage

This early detection enables defenders to:

• Isolate affected systems quickly
• Investigate the adversary’s behavior in real-time
• Avoid data loss or system disruption
• Contain the blast radius before damage occurs

And in many cases, early detection prevents the breach from escalating into a reportable incident — shrinking potential breach costs from millions of dollars to near zero. This is why Gartner has begun to frame deception as a preemptive security control — not a reactive one. By deploying deception broadly across IT, OT, and cloud environments, organizations can build a detection capability that anticipates failure, rather than waits for symptoms to emerge.

4.3 A Complement, Not a Replacement

Deception is not a replacement for existing controls — it’s a complementary layer that makes them more effective. It works alongside:

• Zero Trust architectures, adding post-authentication detection
• EDR tools, by confirming when attackers evade agents
• SIEM/SOAR platforms, by feeding high-quality signals into automated response
• Cloud posture tools, by catching attackers in serverless and containerized environments
• OT/IoT systems, where signature-based defenses are limited or nonexistent

Its real value lies in what it catches when other tools miss — not because those tools are flawed, but because no architecture is immune to misconfigurations, blind spots, or human error.

4.4 Designed for the Real World

Deception is also uniquely suited to today’s hybrid enterprises. Modern deception platforms are:

• Agentless and lightweight, requiring no endpoint installations
• Scalable, with broad coverage across data centers, cloud, and edge
• Autonomous, with minimal tuning and low false positive rates
• Rapid to deploy, often operational within weeks

And perhaps most importantly, deception offers CISOs a measurable and reportable control — one that can demonstrate risk reduction to the board and auditors in clear, unambiguous terms.

5. Architecting for Resilience: Two Sides of Security, Two Different Problems

In the era of assume breach, cybersecurity architecture must be understood not as a single unified stack, but as two distinct — and equally essential — sides of the defensive equation.

On the left side sits the traditional best-practice architecture, built to align with standards like NIST, ISO, and CIS. This architecture includes a wide array of technologies — endpoint protection, identity governance, cloud workload security, vulnerability management, SIEM/SOAR integration, and more. It reflects decades of advancement and investment in trying to keep attackers out.

But this left-side architecture faces an overwhelming challenge: To succeed, it must be implemented perfectly — across an almost infinite attack surface. The perimeter is gone. Remote work, BYOD, SaaS apps, multi-cloud deployments, API integrations, and third-party risks have made it functionally impossible to know where the boundaries are. Every identity, device, app, or connection becomes a potential ingress point. Any gap, misconfiguration, or moment of human error can open the door. And attackers only need one.

5.1 The Infinite vs. the Finite

This is where the right side of the architecture — built on deception technology — comes into focus. While defenders cannot predict how attackers will get in, they can be nearly certain about what the attackers will want once they’re inside. The list is finite:

• Credentials to escalate privileges and move laterally
• Files and data that contain sensitive, strategic, or monetizable information
• Access to systems that control workflows, users, or financial assets

We may not know the vector of attack. But we know the objectives. This is where deception flips the problem.

5.2 Deception Surrounds What Attackers Want

Deception technologies embed interactive decoys, honeytokens, and breadcrumbs in close proximity to what attackers seek. These assets are:

• Indistinguishable from real credentials and files
• Inaccessible to legitimate users or processes
• Silent until touched — at which point they trigger high-fidelity alerts

Unlike traditional detection tools, deception doesn’t rely on guessing attacker behavior. It simply waits near the known targets of interest — the finite objectives — and activates when attackers reach for them. This makes deception inherently asymmetric in favor of the defender. While the attacker must find a way in across an infinite surface, the defender needs only to protect a few strategically placed traps near what matters most.

5.3 Completing the Architecture

With this framing, the two sides of cybersecurity come into alignment:

• The left side is broad, complex, and necessary — it attempts to stop the unknown across a sprawling digital estate.
• The right side is focused, surgical, and resilient — it catches the known attacker behaviors when prevention fails.

Together, they form a complete architecture:

• One side manages complexity.
• The other side manages consequences.

And it’s in this consequence management — the detection of attacker presence before exfiltration or sabotage occurs — that deception delivers the resilience modern enterprises require. For CISOs, this is more than a technical insight — it’s a strategic one. It reframes cybersecurity not as a futile attempt to eliminate all risk, but as a deliberate balance of prevention and preparation. And it allows CISOs to answer the board’s most pressing question:

“What happens if someone gets in?”

The answer: We’ll know — fast — because deception is watching what they want.

6. The Deception Maturity Framework

As deception technology moves from niche to necessity, CISOs are asking: How do we begin? The answer is not to implement deception everywhere all at once, but to adopt a maturity-based approach — one that scales with organizational readiness, security objectives, and existing architecture. This section outlines a Deception Maturity Framework to guide CISOs through staged implementation — from tactical experiments to enterprise-grade resilience.

6.1 Stage 1: Tactical Deployment

Goal: Prove value with high-impact, low-friction use cases. Organizations begin by deploying deception in targeted areas where:

• Attacker behaviors are predictable (e.g., AD credential abuse, lateral movement)
• False positives from existing tools are common
• Coverage gaps are most acute (e.g., OT or legacy systems)

Typical deployments include:

• Honeytokens in Active Directory
• Decoy admin accounts and file shares
• Credentials planted in cloud workloads
• Fake service accounts or tokens in DevOps pipelines

Early-stage deception is fast to deploy, low-touch, and designed to produce high-fidelity alerts that validate the value of the technology without burdening the SOC.

6.2 Stage 2: Strategic Coverage

Goal: Surround what attackers want — not just where they might enter.

In this stage, organizations shift from tool-centric to target-centric thinking. Instead of asking, "Where are our vulnerabilities?" they ask, "What are attackers after?" Deception is extended to protect:

• Crown-jewel data repositories
• Privileged access pathways (PAM, IAM, Zero Trust)
• Cloud and SaaS environments
• Industrial systems and edge networks

This stage aligns deception deployments with business-critical assets, often integrating alerts with SIEM, SOAR, and threat intel platforms. Deception becomes part of daily operations.

6.3 Stage 3: Architectural Integration

Goal: Make deception a permanent, automated layer in the security fabric.

In mature programs, deception is no longer a tool — it is an architectural control, embedded into:

• CI/CD pipelines (shift-left deception)
• IT/OT convergence zones
• Identity lifecycle management
• Incident response playbooks

Organizations may also begin to simulate adversary behaviors to validate deception coverage, tuning decoys to match attacker TTPs and continuously measuring deception effectiveness. At this stage, deception is considered a strategic signal source, valued for:

• Breach visibility across hybrid infrastructure
• Lateral movement detection in Zero Trust environments
• Providing evidence of adversary intent for forensics and threat hunting

6.4 Measuring Maturity

Key metrics to track across all stages include:

• Time to detect lateral movement
• Reduction in false positives
• Number of attacker interactions with decoys
• Time to containment from first detection
• Coverage of business-critical assets with deception

Mature deception programs also evaluate response readiness:

• How quickly does the SOC act on deception alerts?
• How clearly can deception-derived incidents be communicated to executives?
• Are deception signals integrated into playbooks and risk dashboards?

6.5 The Economics of Early Detection: Reducing Breach Costs Through Deception

For years, the value of cybersecurity investments has been measured in terms of control coverage, risk scores, and compliance alignment. But in the era of Assume Breach, time becomes the defining metric. The sooner a breach is detected and contained, the lower its cost — operationally, reputationally, and financially.

Recent research by IBM in its 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report underscores the urgency of early detection. The global average cost of a breach has risen to $4.88 million, the highest on record, while the average cost in the United States now exceeds $9.36 million — a 10% increase year-over-year and the steepest annual climb since the pandemic.

But not all breaches are equal. The IBM report finds that organizations that were able to detect and contain a breach in under 200 days saw cost reductions of over $1 million compared to those that exceeded that threshold. The faster an organization can recognize and contain attacker activity, the more likely it is to avoid data exfiltration, ransomware execution, or widespread system compromise. This is where deception technology delivers quantifiable value.

A Trigger for Earlier, Smarter Response

By placing realistic decoys and honeytokens near credentials, sensitive files, and privileged pathways, deception technologies allow defenders to detect adversaries early in the MITRE ATT&CK chain — during the reconnaissance, credential access, or lateral movement phases. These early-stage alerts give security teams time to isolate the threat, investigate with confidence, and contain the breach before it reaches critical systems or data.

Unlike traditional detection methods that rely on behavioral anomalies or signature-based flags — which often flood the SOC with false positives — deception generates low-volume, high-fidelity signals. This operational clarity directly translates into faster time to detect (TTD) and faster time to respond (TTR) — two of the most important variables in breach cost containment.

“Time is the new currency in cybersecurity, both for the defenders and the attackers,” said Chris McCurdy, General Manager of IBM Security Services.

“As the report shows, early detection and fast response can significantly reduce the impact of a breach.” (IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report, 2025)

Reducing Breach Costs — Potentially to Zero

While no tool can guarantee that a breach will result in zero financial impact, deception technology introduces a powerful possibility:

If an attacker is detected before exfiltrating data or deploying ransomware, the event may be contained quickly enough to avoid material damage — reputational, operational, or financial.

This is especially relevant for CISOs in regulated industries, where breach notification requirements are often triggered by data loss or system compromise. Early containment may mean the difference between an internal incident and a public breach.

In this way, deception doesn't just improve security posture — it protects the bottom line.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations

The cybersecurity conversation is evolving. What was once a race to perfect perimeter defense has become a race to detect the inevitable breach before damage occurs. In this new era, Assume Breach is not a sign of pessimism — it’s a sign of maturity. We’ve shown that today’s best-practice architectures, while essential, operate across an infinite attack surface. Prevention tools must defend every endpoint, every user, every misconfiguration, every shadow asset. This burden is unrealistic — not because the tools are inadequate, but because the environment is unpredictable. And yet, attacker intent is far more predictable and finite. Adversaries consistently seek out the same targets: credentials, lateral movement, sensitive data. This is where deception technology thrives — by surrounding what attackers want with traps they cannot distinguish from real assets.

By embracing this dual-architecture approach — the left side for control, the right side for consequence — CISOs can finally shift from reactive to resilient. This is not an incremental enhancement to legacy defenses. It is a strategic reset. It is also a narrative reset — especially at the board level.

From Perfection to Preparedness: The CISO’s Narrative Shift

In the legacy model, CISOs were expected to prevent every breach. That expectation, while well-intentioned, is no longer credible. In the Assume Breach era, the most strategic CISOs are repositioning their role — not as the keeper of perfection, but as the architect of resilience. Deception makes this narrative shift possible. It provides the CISO with clear, board-level talking points:

• “We no longer assume we can stop every attacker — but we are fully prepared to catch them before damage is done.”
• “We’ve shifted from chasing vulnerabilities to surrounding attacker objectives with high-fidelity detection.”
• “We’ve balanced our investment across both the infinite — where attackers enter — and the finite — where they operate once inside.”

This message resonates not only with security teams, but with CFOs, audit committees, and directors. It changes the conversation from control to consequence readiness, and from abstract risk to tangible evidence of preparedness.

Recommended Next Steps

For organizations seeking to begin or advance their journey with deception:

1. Start with a Tactical PilotIdentify high-value assets and predictable attacker behaviors (e.g., AD abuse, lateral movement). Deploy decoys and honeytokens that align with known threats.
2. Build a Resilience MapMap out the most sensitive credentials, data stores, and access paths. Deploy deception where visibility is low and risk is high.
3. Integrate with Response WorkflowsConnect deception alerts to your SIEM and SOAR platforms. Treat these signals as Tier 1 — high-confidence indicators of compromise.
4. Engage Executives with the Architecture VisualUse the left-side/right-side model to explain the strategy to leadership. Help them understand that Assume Breach is a sign of readiness, not failure.
5. Measure and MatureTrack attacker engagement with decoys. Measure reductions in dwell time and false positives. Use these metrics to scale deception across IT, cloud, and OT domains.

In closing, deception is not the end of the security journey — but it may be the beginning of something more sustainable: A security model that accounts for human error, architectural complexity, and adversary creativity — and still wins.

References:

• IBM Security. (2024).Cost of a data breach report 2024. https://www.ibm.com/reports/data-breach
• Wikipedia (2024).Deception technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_technology
• Wikipedia (2024).Illusive Networks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusive_Networks
• Acalvio Technologies. (2024).Emerging tech: Tech innovators in preemptive cybersecurity. https://insights.acalvio.com/gartner-research-report-emerging-tech-innovators-in-preemptive-cybersecurity.html
• Barracuda Networks. (2024, August 20).2024 IBM breach report: More breaches, higher costs. https://blog.barracuda.com/2024/08/20/2024-IBM-breach-report-more-breaches-higher-costs
• Enzoic (2024).Insights from IBM's 2024 cost of a data breach report. https://www.enzoic.com/blog/ibms-2024-cost-of-a-data-breach
• MixMode (2024, February 15).The new era of cybersecurity: Gartner’s vision for preemptive defense. https://mixmode.ai/blog/the-new-era-of-cybersecurity-gartners-vision-for-preemptive-defense
• Morphisec (2024, March 8).Improving threat detection with preemptive security solutions. https://www.morphisec.com/blog/gartner-improving-threat-detection-with-preemptive-security-solutions
• UpGuard (2024).What is the cost of a data breach in 2024? https://www.upguard.com/blog/cost-of-a-data-breach-2024
• Zscaler (2024, July 30). 7 key takeaways from IBM’s cost of a data breach report 2024. https://www.zscaler.com/blogs/product-insights/7-key-takeaways-ibm-s-cost-data-breach-report-2024