.png){kind=logo}
AI Is Changing the Cost of Getting Cybersecurity Wrong
Weekly Brief | Week of September 21, 2026
The recent stories about AI systems breaking into real companies sound like the beginning of a new era of cyberattacks. But the AI systems used familiar attack techniques, and that is what should concern business leaders most.
Google's Gemini reached real companies through password guessing and credentials exposed in public repositories. Anthropic has disclosed incidents involving exposed credentials, SQL injection, and security systems that allowed compromised credentials to provide access to additional infrastructure. In one case, Claude scanned roughly 9,000 internet-facing targets before finding a company with an exposed debug page and a vulnerable application.
A human attacker could have exploited many of the same weaknesses. What AI changes is how quickly those weaknesses can be found, tested, and turned into something useful.
For a CEO, the real issue is not whether AI can hack a company. It is why ordinary weaknesses were still able to become working attack paths.
Most businesses already have some level of cybersecurity in place. They have firewalls, endpoint protection, backups, MFA, an MSP, cyber insurance requirements, compliance obligations, or some combination of them. But having those pieces does not necessarily mean they work together to protect the business.
These incidents make that clear. Those are not exotic failures. They are gaps between the controls an organization has and what those controls actually prevent.
Password guessing is a good example. There are well-established ways to make it much harder to turn password guessing into a compromise: stronger authentication policy, MFA, lockout or rate limiting, and controls around where and how an account can be used. If those protections exist but the password can still be guessed and used successfully, the problem is not the lack of a security product. The problem is that policy not being set properly or the policy is not being enforced effectively.
That is where the business risk sits. The issue is whether that flaw creates a usable path to something important.
This is where CustosIQ approaches cybersecurity differently. We look at whether the company’s existing protections work together to protect what the business cannot afford to lose. The objective is to determine where ordinary weaknesses can still cross those boundaries.
Does a compromised identity have more access than it should? Can access intended for one area be used somewhere else? Can an internet-facing application provide a path toward critical systems or data? Are security policies actually enforced, or do they exist primarily on paper?
That is the difference between owning security tools and operating a security program.
The business case is straightforward: companies are already spending money on technology and outside providers. CustosIQ helps determine whether those investments are actually reducing risk to the parts of the business that matter and helps correct the gaps when they are not.
AI makes that more urgent because ordinary weaknesses have less time to remain unnoticed. A credential that sits exposed for months may now be found sooner. An overlooked application may be tested more frequently. A simple configuration mistake can become a usable attack path before the organization realizes it exists.
For leadership, the question is therefore not:
Do we have cybersecurity?
It is:
Are the protections we already have actually preventing ordinary mistakes from becoming paths to the systems, data, and operations our business depends on?
That is the question CustosIQ is built to answer.
Cybersecurity is a business problem. Effective protection comes from knowing what matters, knowing how to protect it, and making sure those protections continue to work.
Comments