Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
30/07/2026 10:49 pm
TL;DR: Executives want cyber resilience explained in business terms, while practitioners want benchmarks, threat context, and practical guidance, according to Commvault. The shift matters because identity, recovery, and operational resilience are increasingly judged as business controls, not just technical functions.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Commvault: Readiverse commentary on cyber resilience, business outcomes, and customer learning
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams connect identity controls to cyber resilience planning?
A: They should map identity controls to the business services they protect, then define what loss of access, recovery delay, or privilege failure means in operational and financial terms.
Q: Why do benchmarks matter in resilience and identity programmes?
A: Benchmarks give teams a way to test whether their controls are actually mature or merely documented.
Q: How can organisations prepare for AI-driven disruption in resilience planning?
A: They should include AI-enabled workflows, delegated credentials, and machine identities in resilience exercises and recovery design.
Practitioner guidance
- Translate control outcomes into business terms Map recovery, access, and identity controls to the specific business services they protect, then express impact in revenue, continuity, and customer terms rather than technical acronyms.
- Build benchmarkable maturity measures Define a small set of measurable indicators for identity resilience, including inventory completeness, recovery account ownership, and time to restore access after disruption.
- Include AI-related identity paths in resilience planning Add AI-enabled workflows, machine identities, and delegated access paths to incident scenarios so the programme reflects how attacks and operations now move across multiple identity types.
What's in the full article
Commvault's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- How Commvault structures the Readiverse around executive, practitioner, and peer-learning formats
- The specific content types it says customers asked for, including readiness assessments, intelligence briefs, and workshops
- The article's own framing of why resilience messaging now needs to connect technology to business outcomes
- Sarv Saravanan's broader commentary on how the Readiverse is intended to support ongoing customer conversations
👉 Read Commvault's commentary on the Readiverse and cyber resilience →
Cyber resilience and business outcomes: what should IAM teams do next?
Explore further
30/07/2026 10:55 pm
Cyber resilience is now an identity governance problem as much as a recovery problem. The article is really describing a shift in how security programmes are judged: not by whether they own a technology stack, but by whether they can explain continuity in business terms. That shift matters because identity controls determine who can restore, who can operate, and who can be trusted during disruption. Practitioners should treat resilience as a governance discipline that spans access, recovery, and accountability.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 69% of organisations now have more machine identities than human ones, according to The Critical Gaps in Machine Identity Management report.
- 59% of companies face greater difficulties auditing machine identities, primarily due to lack of clear ownership and limited visibility.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should IAM leaders do when executives ask for business value instead of technical detail?
A: Lead with service impact, continuity risk, and measurable recovery outcomes. Executives usually do not need the mechanics of a control first. They need to understand what the control protects, how failure would affect the business, and what evidence shows the programme is improving.
👉 Read our full editorial: Resilience messaging is shifting from technology to business outcomes
