Cybersecurity without governance will fail. Organizations have responded to cyber threats for years by investing in more tools—firewalls, endpoint detection, SIEM solutions, and AI-powered threat intelligence. Yet, data breaches and security failures continue to rise. Why? Cybersecurity is often treated as an IT issue rather than a governance issue.

Data Loss Prevention (DLP) is one of the most misunderstood cybersecurity topics.
It sounds complex, expensive, and “too advanced” especially for small businesses, and many teams think it’s only relevant to large enterprises.

By proactively refining SOC 1 report management and vendor risk processes, organizations can effectively mitigate risks, streamline compliance efforts, and maintain strong audit outcomes. The time to adapt these enhanced processes is now—before unexpected audit findings emerge.

As organizations enter 2026, internal audit functions are operating in an environment defined by accelerating change, uncertainty, and heightened expectations. Traditional risk areas have not disappeared, but they are being reshaped by digital disruption, geopolitical volatility, regulatory expansion, and rising stakeholder demands. Internal audit is expected not only to provide assurance, but to help organizations anticipate what comes next and build resilience before disruption occurs. Recent industry analysis highlights a set of risk areas that should shape internal audit planning over the next several years. These risks require a more agile, forward-looking audit approach that balances established assurance responsibilities with emerging threats that are evolving faster than annual audit cycles.

Cybersecurity in 2026 is entering a new phase—one defined by identity-based attacks, AI-driven threat actors, and the accelerating complexity of digital ecosystems. Advisory and accounting firms across the Big 4 consistently highlight a similar set of emerging risks, each shaped by geopolitical pressure, rapid technology adoption, and widening gaps in governance.

User Access Reviews (UARs) are one of the most important identity governance controls in any cybersecurity program. They help prevent privilege creep, detect stale or risky accounts, and reduce the effectiveness of any cyberattack. They are also one of the most common controls that have issues in design and execution.

You’ll walk away with everything you need to build a cybersecurity program that stands up to scrutiny, supports your business, and gives you confidence.

Nothing scares me more than the existential threat of AI-powered cyberattacks and the inevitable AI-powered robots that Bezos, Musk, and who knows else seem determined to bring into the world, like mad scientists competing to see who can defy the natural order of the world first.

I believe our individual perspective on the nature of people influences our auditing. This article will present two perspectives and discuss how implicit optimistic or pessimistic worldviews impact the outcome of an audit.

The survey results report a discrepancy in the expectations set by the organization and those understand by the audit department.

Auditors love the quote “Trust, but verify” from former US President Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, we sometimes put too much trust in the people we audit.

Stop wasting time testing useless controls and add more design evaluation to your process.

In internal audit, we have a interesting diversity dilemma. In most of the teams I’ve worked with over the years, I have seen consistent examples of diversity in race and gender identity among auditors. I personally have only worked directly for female leaders in my career. The dilemma I’m referring to is the bias toward accounting and finance professionals.

As The Institute of Internal Auditors (The IIA) is currently revamping the Three Lines of Defense model, this is a perfect time for us to revisit our interactions with the Audit Committee. Audit departments are soon going to find themselves in more advanced risk management discussions with senior management and the audit committee. A good internal audit department is one that can effectively work with the audit committee as a partner in enterprise governance. A world-class internal audit department goes much further.

When we talk about data analytics and data mining, many people immediately get overwhelmed. In the real world, most data analytics can be pretty simple, and most of us start out in Excel. Just think about the words we are using. “Data analytics” is just systematic review of information, which is a fancy way to say you performed a test.

It’s frustrating to watch an audit department fall apart. I’ve seen it happen several times in my career. I suggest a two step process to proactively prevent this disaster from happening to you. First, take a hard look at the feedback style perpetuated in your department. Then, perform a skills assessment for the department to determine where improvements need to be made.

You can find a news article about fraud literally every day. If fraud is so rampant, shouldn’t auditors actually find fraudulent activity more often? The answer is a resounding YES, we should!  

When it takes so much effort to complete the assessment that it takes away from the actual audits that we could be working on, is it time to admit that our risk assessment process is just too complicated?

Have you considered the ethical complexity you face with every report you write? This blog examines several key considerations every auditor should keep in mind.