Information Security and IT Audit teams are often described as partners, yet in many organizations, they operate more like parallel functions. They share high-level goals like protecting information, reducing risk, and supporting governance, but approach them with different languages, incentives, and success metrics. The result is a persistent disconnect that weakens both cybersecurity outcomes and audit assurance.

This gap is not caused by lack of skill or effort on either side. It is structural, and if it is not addressed intentionally, it leads to audits that check boxes without improving security, and security programs that struggle to demonstrate value to executives and boards.

For many auditors, arguments over audit findings feel like an impasse. An argument can signal resistance, delay, or an attempt to weaken the report. In practice, however, disagreement is a normal and often healthy part of governance. Mature risk management environments allow space for challenge, judgment, and differing perspectives.

The key question is not whether disagreement occurs, but how it is handled and negotiated.

Cybersecurity has always been a contest between attackers and defenders. For decades, that contest was largely human versus human. Skilled attackers probed systems, and skilled defenders built controls, investigated alerts, and responded to incidents. That balance is now breaking.

The next era of cybersecurity is not human versus human. It is humans versus artificial intelligence.

Recent reporting highlights a turning point. AI is no longer just a defensive tool used by security teams. It is now actively being used by attackers to scale, automate, and adapt attacks at a speed and sophistication that traditional security models were never designed to handle. This shift fundamentally changes what “good security” looks like.

Audit conflicts don’t come from “stupid questions”—they come from pressure, power dynamics, and misunderstandings. This article explains how empathy improves auditor–auditee relationships and leads to better audits.

A practical guide to consistently managing change controls, covering key risks, expected controls, SDLC requirements, and audit-ready testing steps to strengthen ITGC and prevent system failures.

Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) compliance requires more than just checking financial controls. It demands a seamless partnership between IT and business process auditors. Yet, many organizations still operate these functions in silos, leading to inefficiencies, compliance gaps, and even audit failures because no one has a complete view of the SOX program. Organizations must foster synergy between IT and business process auditors to ensure a robust SOX program. Luckily, we have a solution.

Operational resilience has become a board-level priority. Customers expect uninterrupted service. Regulators expect strong controls. Investors expect stability. In this environment, disruptions — whether caused by cyberattacks, supply chain failures, natural disasters, system outages, or vendor failures — can harm revenue, damage brand reputation, and weaken market confidence.

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.