Chris Schreiber
Shift your institution's cybersecurity strategy from compliance to risk intelligence. Enhance protection against advanced threats and safeguard academic goals.
When a compliance requirement is no longer in place, the underlying risk usually persists. This poses a significant challenge for higher education institutions that have based their cybersecurity investments on regulatory obligations. With higher education encountering more advanced cyber threats, such as targeted ransomware attacks and elaborate phishing schemes, institutions need to shift from compliance-focused security to risk-aware strategies that enhance the protection of their academic goals.
Higher education institutions may assume that meeting regulatory requirements equates to achieving effective security. This creates a dangerous sense of assurance, leading stakeholders to believe that compliance means security. Campus CISOs often cite compliance mandates as their top reason for funding security. While compliance provides a valuable baseline, it doesn't fully address the nuanced and evolving cyber risks specific to each institution. These compliance-driven mindsets cause leaders to overlook threats falling outside regulatory parameters, creating blind spots.
For example, universities might pass annual audits yet remain vulnerable to sophisticated ransomware attacks or insider threats because these specific risks are inadequately covered by regulatory frameworks. Compliance-focused cybersecurity often fails to communicate the value of security programs to institutional stakeholders. Demonstrating regulatory adherence doesn't connect security investments to broader institutional missions—such as maintaining trust, protecting research integrity, or supporting continuous academic operations. Administrators may view security efforts as necessary costs rather than strategic enablers of institutional success.
The tangible business impacts of inadequate cybersecurity investments are apparent across higher education. Universities that don't invest beyond minimum compliance often suffer operational disruptions from preventable issues. Institutions that avoid advanced email security because of cost may later face severe phishing disruptions, increasing IT workloads.
These incidents extend far beyond immediate technical response. Extensive phishing incidents cause universities to disable accounts or block network access, affecting critical operations ranging from student registration to payroll. The result is not only operational downtime but also damage to institutional reputation as students, faculty, and external partners question the reliability of campus systems.
According to IBM's Cost of a Data Breach Report (2023), higher education institutions face an average breach cost of $3.7 million. This cost includes expenses for remediation, notification, legal fees, and damage to reputation. It highlights how minor choices to save on security investments can lead to significant financial and operational challenges.
Traditional compliance-based cybersecurity functions like a checklist. Institutions follow specific controls because regulations mandate them. This method often hinders change and innovation, as stakeholders may challenge the need for additional security measures. Compliance-focused programs might prioritize passing audits rather than fixing vulnerabilities, leaving institutions at risk of threats not covered by compliance standards.
In contrast, risk intelligence moves beyond mere regulatory adherence. It requires institutions to identify and assess specific threats relevant to their unique environments and strategic priorities. Instead of asking, "What does compliance require us to do?" risk intelligence asks, "What could realistically harm our institution, and how can we prevent or mitigate it?" This approach helps institutions prioritize investments based on potential impact rather than on regulatory mandates alone.
Consider the encryption requirements for sensitive student data, as mandated by compliance frameworks. While encryption is crucial, a risk-intelligent approach acknowledges that it may not eliminate risks like advanced phishing attacks on faculty credentials or ransomware incidents disrupting critical operations. A risk-intelligent institution implements comprehensive security measures not just to comply with regulations but to prevent substantial damage to institutional operations.
Higher education leaders encounter a unique challenge in quantifying and communicating cybersecurity risks. Unlike industries with well-developed statistical models or actuarial data, universities often lack structured frameworks for discussing risk. Tools such as capability assessments and benchmarking help fill this gap by offering concrete metrics and comparative data.
While benchmarking offers valuable comparisons, institutions also need capability assessments to pinpoint internal strengths and weaknesses. Through structured capability assessment frameworks, institutions can evaluate their current cybersecurity maturity, pinpoint areas that need improvement, and align these areas with the desired outcomes. This maturity-focused approach helps address key questions, such as:
By using these assessment methods, institutions can create internal datasets to monitor and communicate progress. Security leaders can showcase tangible advancements in capabilities, reduced incident response times, or decreased susceptibility to phishing among users, instead of comparing themselves to peers.
One effective way to shift institutional mindsets from a compliance-driven approach to a proactive security perspective is by changing cybersecurity conversations from abstract mandates to relatable, scenario-based discussions.
For example, institutional leaders can ask stakeholders personalized questions about cybersecurity risks:
These real-life scenarios help stakeholders see the direct impacts of cybersecurity, making it personal rather than theoretical. This method guides stakeholders toward thinking proactively about solutions and preventive actions rather than reactive compliance tasks.
Effective cybersecurity governance and academic freedom are not mutually exclusive; they can complement each other. Correct implementation of security practices supports and safeguards academic freedom. Robust security programs protect faculty research, teaching, and intellectual property from external threats or disruptions.
Institutions should show how security measures protect academic freedom by preventing unauthorized access to sensitive research, safeguarding intellectual property, and minimizing disruptions that could jeopardize research continuity. By presenting cybersecurity as a facilitator rather than a hindrance, universities can align security goals with faculty priorities.
To advance beyond compliance-driven cybersecurity, institutions should establish cross-functional cybersecurity governance committees. These committees should involve representatives from academic leadership, administrative departments, legal counsel, risk management, and IT. This inclusive approach allows broader institutional planning to consider cybersecurity risks.
Regularly engaging with senior leadership through structured reporting and dialogues is crucial to empowering cybersecurity leaders. Presentations should delineate how specific risks could affect core institutional missions, emphasizing institutional values over mere compliance requirements.
Success in cybersecurity is often measured by the absence of major incidents. Institutions can employ practical strategies to showcase the benefits of investing in proactive security measures, such as:
Institutions implementing risk intelligence approaches gain competitive advantages beyond regulatory compliance. Structured risk assessments, high-impact security projects, and progress tracking transform security from a compliance burden into a strategic enabler. A proactive, data-driven approach boosts resilience while enhancing institutional reputation, reassuring students, faculty, and external partners that the institution safeguards critical assets.
Higher education CIOs and CISOs must engage in nuanced discussions where regulatory mandates are just one aspect of risk management. Colleges and universities should establish continuous security improvement processes, reassess risks using structured frameworks, prioritize security investments based on emerging threats, and monitor progress using established metrics.
By treating cybersecurity as a strategic enabler, institutions can align security with academic goals, protect data, and show the value of risk-aware investments. This approach positions cybersecurity as a crucial facilitator of institutional success rather than a regulatory burden.
