A disconnect between data protection and organizations’ presumed preparedness was analyzed by Crisis24.

According to the report, 93% admitted their company has missed warning signs of crises or disruptions, with one in four saying it happens frequently or all the time. Nearly half (48%) agreed that their leadership team is frequently caught off guard by market shifts and external pressures.

Every respondent reported that their business had suffered a financial impact from a recent disruption, with more than a quarter (28%) putting the cost at $25 million or more from a single event. The median impact was $2 million.

Senior leaders also estimated that close to half (46%) of their leadership team's time is spent reacting to immediate crises rather than preparing for future ones. And when asked whether lost market share over the past decade could have been prevented with earlier access to relevant intelligence, 60% said more than a quarter of those losses were avoidable.

The survey was fielded in Q1 2026, before the outbreak of the US/Israel-Iran conflict. Even then, the data showed that geopolitical risk was weighing heavily on the C-suite. Nearly four in five respondents (79%) said that recent geopolitical events had forced their company to rethink its crisis management strategy. Forty-five percent said they felt underprepared for geopolitical instability specifically. And more than a quarter (26%) of leadership teams described their anxiety about global instability's impact on their business as high or severe, with 81% agreeing that this anxiety has a direct impact on strategic decision-making in their organization.

Two-thirds (67%) of leaders agreed that their organization has access to large amounts of data but struggles to convert it into prioritized, actionable insights. More than half (56%) pointed to a disconnect between the data they collect and their ability to use it for fast strategic decisions during crises.

When asked what prevents their company from detecting crises earlier, the top barriers were information overload (46%), too much noise in the data (43%), and difficulty establishing data credibility or relevance (42%). In addition, 68% cited some form of inability to forecast business disruptions as a barrier, including lack of suitable external solutions, in-house capabilities, and dedicated resources.

When asked which potential crises they feel most underprepared for, senior leaders pointed to cybersecurity threats (48%), AI-driven misinformation (46%), geopolitical instability (45%) and financial market instability (42%).

Nearly 50% of Organizations Faced Lateral Movement Attacks in Last Year

A report by Elisity found that 99% of security leaders want micro-segmentation deployed. However, the majority have protected fewer than 80% of their critical systems.

The report also found that nearly half experienced lateral movement attacks in the past year. Across 352 U.S. cybersecurity decision makers in healthcare and manufacturing, the data tells a consistent story: organizations want modern micro-segmentation and aren't getting it done.

According to the report, 44% of those surveyed cite comprehensive device visibility as their most critical capability gap and 69% demand identity-based controls in any modern solution. Micro-segmentation ranks toward the bottom at 24% among currently deployed Zero Trust initiatives, despite ranking first among planned priorities.

The report found that 32% cite cyber insurance requirements as a direct business driver for pursuing micro-segmentation. In addition, 22% have hands-on experience with modern micro-segmentation, pointing to an awareness gap as much as an execution gap.

Healthcare organizations rank SIEM, EDR, and SOAR integration as their top challenge with previous microsegmentation efforts. Visiting clinicians (74%) and clinical staff (72%) require the most granular policy attention, given the mix of managed and unmanaged devices moving through clinical environments.

Read the report.