Cybersecurity Trust Gaps: Why Stakeholders Believe Hackers Before They Believe You

Not long ago, hackers claimed to have stolen nearly 19 million customer records from TalkTalk. Within hours, that number appeared in headlines across the U.K. and beyond. The problem was that it was not true. TalkTalk later pushed back, calling the claim “wholly inaccurate” and “very significantly overstated.” But by then, the damage was done. Customers, regulators, and journalists had already absorbed the hacker’s story as fact, and TalkTalk’s correction barely registered in comparison.

This paradox has become one of the defining features of modern cyber incidents: stakeholders instinctively trust hackers before they trust the companies under attack. It sounds absurd. Why should anyone believe the word of criminals? Yet time and again, we see adversaries set the narrative while companies are left scrambling to catch up. At its core, this is not only a technical problem. It is a communications failure, and it has opened a widening trust gap that security leaders and communicators alike need to address.

Hackers Set the Narrative

The Hewlett-Packard Enterprise breach earlier this year is a perfect example. A hacker group calling itself IntelBroker claimed it had stolen sensitive material: product source code, private GitHub repositories, and API keys. The specificity of the claim gave it credibility. HPE’s public statement, on the other hand, was cautious and limited. The company said it was “investigating” and that there was “no evidence of operational impact.” The words were measured, but to stakeholders they sounded evasive. In the crucial early hours, it was the hacker’s version of the story that dominated coverage.

Amazon found itself in a similar position in late 2024, when a MOVEit vendor breach exposed some of its employee data. Hackers boasted that they had published more than 2.8 million lines of stolen records. Amazon confirmed that some employee contact details were affected, including names, work emails, desk phones, and building locations, but emphasized that sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers or financial data, had not been compromised. The company declined to say exactly how many employees were impacted. That decision may have been pragmatic, but it left the impression that Amazon was minimizing the issue. Once again, the gap between the hacker’s specificity and the company’s restraint tilted perception in the wrong direction.

The pattern is clear. Hackers win the narrative because they are bold, detailed, and fast. They post screenshots, file names, and stolen samples that feel authentic. Companies, in contrast, default to legal caution. They rely on familiar boilerplate such as “we take this seriously” or “we are investigating.” To corporate counsel, such language reduces liability. To the outside world, it sounds like hedging. And because so many companies have a history of under-disclosing or delaying confirmation, audiences often assume the worst.

The Cost of the Trust Gap

The cost of this imbalance is significant. Reputational equity takes an immediate hit when customers and employees assume their information is at risk, regardless of the actual scope of the breach. Journalists gravitate to the hacker’s version of events because it is more specific and more dramatic. By the time the company clarifies, the headline damage has already been done.

Regulators also respond to perception as much as fact. An organization that appears evasive can expect tougher scrutiny, even if the actual technical impact is limited. Inside the business, employee confidence erodes when staff suspect the company is telling outsiders more than it tells its own people, or worse, hiding the truth altogether. Losing the communications battle compounds the technical incident. You can remediate the servers, but if you do not remediate trust, the crisis lingers far longer.

Why the Old PR Playbook Fails

Part of the problem is that the traditional PR playbook was not built for this type of crisis. In most corporate controversies, the instinct is to minimize exposure and limit comment. In cybersecurity, that approach backfires. Vagueness reads as dishonesty. Saying less feels like a cover-up. Stakeholders expect technical clarity, timelines, and accountability. When they do not get it, they look to the adversary instead.

A New Framework for Trust

Closing this trust gap requires a different mindset. Companies need to recognize that in a cyber crisis, credibility is every bit as important as remediation. That means being willing to share what is known at the time rather than waiting for a complete picture. If a thousand records are confirmed to be compromised, say so, even if further investigation may change the number. Stakeholders value transparency over perfection.

Consistent updates are equally critical. Silence breeds speculation, while regular communication, even if limited, signals that the company is in control. Independent validation is another essential tool. When law enforcement, external auditors, or well-respected cybersecurity experts stand beside a company, the message carries more weight. Preparation matters as well. No organization should be improvising its communication strategy in the middle of a breach. Pre-drafted frameworks, FAQs, and media training for executives should be as common as technical incident response drills.

Finally, tone matters. Too many breach disclosures sound sterile, legalistic, or robotic. Remember that people are frightened. Speak with empathy and clarity about what the company is doing to protect them.

Where PR and Cybersecurity Meet

This is where marketing and PR expertise intersects directly with cybersecurity. A breach is not just an IT issue; it is a brand issue. Every word a company releases in the wake of an incident either reinforces or erodes the brand promise. Hackers understand the power of storytelling, which is why their claims spread so quickly. Companies need to understand it too, and respond with narratives that are fast, credible, and human.

The Final Word

Cybersecurity crises are, at their core, crises of trust. The technology may determine how much data is exposed, but communications determine how much credibility is lost. If stakeholders believe hackers before they believe you, then the breach has already moved beyond your systems. It has breached your reputation. And unlike a firewall, trust cannot be patched once it is broken.

The companies that endure will be those that fight for credibility as fiercely as they defend their networks. In today’s landscape, credibility itself has become the strongest firewall.