The hidden layer of “unowned systems” — the new silent failure CISOs are ignoring

Welcome reader to a 🔍 free deep dive. No paywall, just insights.

Brought to you by:

👣 Smallstep – Secures Wi-Fi, VPNs, ZTNA, SaaS and APIs with hardware-bound credentials powered by ACME Device Attestation

 📊 LockThreat – AI-powered GRC that replaces legacy tools and unifies compliance, risk, audit and vendor management in one platform

1️⃣ CybersecurityHQ is now the top-ranked cybersecurity newsletter on Bing.

Forwarded this email? Join 70,000 weekly readers by signing up now.

#OpenToWork? Try our AI Resume Builder to boost your chances of getting hired!

—

CybersecurityHQ’s premium content is now available exclusively to CISOs at no cost. As a CISO, you get full access to all premium insights and analysis. Want in? Just reach out to me directly and I’ll get you set up.

—

Get one-year access to our deep dives, weekly Cyber Intel Podcast Report, premium content, AI Resume Builder, and more for just $299. Corporate plans are available too.

Breaches caused by system deficiency increase CISO turnover likelihood by 72 percent.¹

That statistic should terrify you. Not because sophisticated attackers are getting better. Not because zero-days are proliferating. But because you are being held accountable for infrastructure you cannot see, do not control, and did not know existed.

Here is what actually happens: A breach occurs. Forensics traces the entry point to a service account created three years ago for a contractor integration. Nobody on your current team knows it exists. The account has admin privileges. It was never decommissioned. Attackers used it to move laterally for seven months. The board convenes. They ask who owned that account. Nobody can answer. They ask why it still had access. Nobody can answer. They ask how many other orphaned accounts exist in your environment. You cannot answer. Two weeks later, you are explaining the incident to recruiters instead of remediating it.

This is not a theoretical scenario. This is how CISOs get fired, sued, and scapegoated. And the rate of unowned system creation is now outpacing governance capacity by orders of magnitude. You are already behind.

In July 2025, a single faulty software update from CrowdStrike affected 8.5 million devices globally, causing $15 billion in losses.² The chaos revealed something more disturbing than a deployment failure. Most affected organizations had no idea how many systems they were running, who owned them, or whether they could safely roll back the update. The technical failure was fixable within days. The governance failure was years in the making.

This is not an edge case. Recent research found that 74% of organizations experienced a security incident because IT assets were unmanaged or simply unknown.³ When external security firms scan corporate networks, they routinely discover an order of magnitude more assets than internal teams thought existed. These are not sophisticated intrusions. These are failures of basic inventory discipline.

The modern enterprise runs on thousands of systems that nobody truly owns. Service accounts created for one-time integrations that run indefinitely. Cloud storage buckets from projects nobody remembers. API keys tied to employees who left years ago. Automated workflows built by contractors no longer with the company. Each represents a governance void where security policy cannot reach.

The financial consequences are measurable. Breaches involving stolen credentials took an average of 292 days to contain in 2024, far exceeding the 200-day threshold where costs spike by 23%.⁴ The average breach now costs $10.22 million in the United States, a 9% increase driven by regulatory penalties and detection failures in complex environments.⁵ Organizations are paying millions because they cannot answer the most basic question: what are we running?

Traditional security frameworks offer no solution. Legacy Identity Governance and Administration systems assumed human users and centralized resources. Zero Trust architectures presume you know what assets to protect. Both assumptions are obsolete. When non-human identities outnumber humans 144 to 1, a ratio that increased 56% in a single year,⁶ the entire governance model collapses under its own weight.

This article examines why unowned systems have become the silent failure mechanism in modern enterprises, why the problem is accelerating beyond human capacity to manage, and what CISOs must do immediately to survive the accountability crisis.

The Four-Layer Failure Model

Unowned systems destroy security posture through four cascading mechanisms. Each layer feeds the next, creating compounding failure that becomes impossible to reverse without structural intervention.

Layer 1: Visibility Collapse
You cannot secure what you cannot see. Approximately 70% of hosts in large organizations are absent from security scans, either powered off or operating with restricted permissions.⁷ These dark hosts exist, consume resources, and pose risks, but remain invisible to security operations. Organizations typically have 25% more assets on their networks than internal inventories reflect. The gap between perceived infrastructure and actual infrastructure is where attackers establish persistence.

Layer 2: Ownership Vacuum
Systems without clear owners lack accountability for patching, monitoring, and decommissioning. A study of 322 Dutch municipalities revealed that systems the responsible security team attributed to organizations did not match what practitioners believed they were responsible for.⁸ This attribution failure created a category of infrastructure that everyone assumed someone else was managing. Nobody was managing it. In industrial control systems, vulnerabilities remained undetected for an average of 5.3 years because no team claimed ownership of the affected infrastructure.⁹

Layer 3: Identity Sprawl
Non-human identities proliferate faster than governance can scale. Machine identities outnumber human identities 144 to 1 in modern cloud environments.⁶ Identity issues now represent the top cloud security risk, with excessive permissions cited at 31%, inconsistent access controls at 27%, and weak identity hygiene at 27%.¹⁰ These are not sophisticated attacks. These are credentials left accessible long after their purpose expired.

Layer 4: Lifecycle Failure
Systems and credentials decay when active management ceases. Analysis of 28,000 enterprises with 82 million hosts found it took over 6 months on average to patch 90% of client-side applications.¹¹ The Dutch municipalities study revealed four explanations for non-patching: staff were unaware of vulnerabilities, unable to patch due to constraints, systems were retired but still running, or systems should have been shut down entirely.⁸ The last two categories represent pure lifecycle failures where governance processes terminated but infrastructure persisted.

The Compounding Effect: Visibility collapse prevents ownership assignment. Ownership vacuums enable identity sprawl. Identity sprawl overwhelms lifecycle management capacity. The result is infrastructure that silently accumulates risk until exploitation forces discovery. By then, attackers have had months or years of undetected access.

Why Your Detection Strategy Is Already Failing

Your current security posture rests on assumptions the evidence has already falsified. You are operating under premises that stopped being true years ago.

You assume you know what systems you run. The largest enterprise security study found that 91% to 97% of enterprises encountered malware or potentially unwanted programs, but only 13% to 41% of hosts within those enterprises were affected.¹¹ The variance is not random. It reflects knowledge gaps creating uneven protection. Some infrastructure receives aggressive monitoring and patching. Other infrastructure exists in blind spots where detection never reaches. You are defending the assets you know about while attackers exploit the assets you do not.

You assume every critical identity is monitored. Research shows 88% of companies still define privileged user as humans only, even though almost half of machine identities hold sensitive privileges.¹⁰ Machine identities operate continuously across global infrastructure with access patterns that appear identical whether legitimate or compromised. Traditional monitoring focuses on human behavior patterns such as login times and geographic locations. These signals are meaningless for automated processes. The identity paradigm shifted years ago. Your governance has not.

You assume Zero Trust protects you from sprawl. Zero Trust Network Access and related controls only secure what you know to onboard. NIST explicitly highlights Non-Human Identities as a significant gap in standard Zero Trust approaches.¹³ If a workload, account, or device is not in your Zero Trust model, it operates outside the security perimeter entirely. You have built sophisticated verification mechanisms for the infrastructure you inventoried in 2022. Everything created since then exists in a governance void.

These are not edge cases requiring mitigation. These are structural realities rendering your detection strategy obsolete. The question is not whether you have unowned systems. The question is how long attackers have been exploiting them before you discover they exist.

The 2025 Acceleration: Three Forces Compounding the Crisis

The unowned systems problem is worsening at exponential rates. Three trends in 2025 are multiplying invisible infrastructure faster than governance can adapt.

AI-Generated Infrastructure Sprawl
Over 80% of employees admit to using unsanctioned shadow AI tools at work. What previously required weeks of procurement and approval now happens in minutes through no-code platforms and AI assistants. Each AI-generated workflow creates identities, consumes resources, and introduces dependencies. Most operate outside IT governance entirely. The velocity of infrastructure creation has exceeded human oversight capacity.

Cloud Identity Granularity
Cloud providers encourage fine-grained identities and roles for every microservice, container, and API. Non-human identities increased 44% year-over-year, reaching the 144 to 1 ratio by mid-2025.⁶ Each identity is a potential entry point if orphaned. The growth in machine identities created a management burden that few security teams have addressed. The result is fragmented identity silos and multi-cloud complexity that undermines organizational resilience.

Lifecycle Weakness Exploitation
Analysis found that 83% of cyber attacks now involve compromised secrets or credentials.¹⁴ Attackers pivoted from exploiting software flaws to exploiting lifecycle lapses. Exploiting process negligence such as forgotten credentials is cheaper and more reliable than defeating hardened software. Breaches trace to leftover credentials in code repositories or shadow cloud accounts nobody cleaned up. The battlefield shifted from perimeter defense to lifecycle governance. Most organizations are still fighting the last war.

These three forces create a compounding problem. AI multiplies the rate of infrastructure creation. Cloud identity granularity multiplies the number of credentials per system. Lifecycle weakness exploitation means attackers specifically target the resulting gaps. The gap between infrastructure growth and governance capacity widens every quarter.

The Financial Penalty: Quantifying Ignorance

Shadow IT represents 30% to 40% of large companies' IT expenditure, with nearly 1 in 2 cyberattacks tracing back to these systems and incurring average remediation costs exceeding $4.2 million.¹⁵ The CrowdStrike incident demonstrated catastrophic outlier risk: $5 billion in direct costs, with estimated global losses reaching $15 billion.²

Breaches identified and addressed within 200 days cost organizations 23% less to resolve.⁴ Conversely, incidents involving stolen credentials took the longest time to contain, averaging 292 days.⁴ Persistence granted to attackers exploiting stale service accounts or orphaned cloud keys allows operations below detection thresholds for extended periods, dramatically inflating investigation, notification, and remediation costs.

The average breach cost reached $10.22 million in the United States in 2025, a 9% increase driven primarily by regulatory fines and detection costs in complex environments.⁵ Organizations are paying regulatory penalties not for sophisticated attacks but for failing to maintain basic inventory discipline.

The career cost is equally measurable. Breaches caused by system deficiency increase CISO turnover likelihood by 72%.¹ Notably, breaches caused by criminal fraud or human error showed no such association.¹ CISOs are held accountable specifically for failures within their control scope. Unowned systems are perceived as control failures regardless of whether the CISO had visibility into them. You are responsible for securing infrastructure you do not know exists.

A Ruthless Framework: Five Quarterly Imperatives

The evidence base suggests five interventions that CISOs must execute immediately. These are not long-term roadmap items. These are survival imperatives.

1. Decouple human identities from automated processes immediately. Any system or script running under personal user credentials is already compromised. Audit all CI/CD pipelines, scheduled jobs, and integrations. Identify every instance where personal API keys, OAuth tokens, or user accounts power production processes. Replace with managed service identities that have minimal necessary permissions and automatic rotation policies. Set a 30-day deadline.

2. Force ownership assignment or termination. Create a comprehensive list of ownerless systems. Then apply a forcing function: either assign permanent ownership with patching and monitoring responsibilities, or terminate the system. If no team will claim ownership, that signals the system's purpose is non-critical or obsolete. The risk of internal disruption from decommissioning is preferable to external exploitation. The deadline is 30 days for ownership claims before automatic shutdown.

3. Institute 90-day identity lifecycle mandates. Every non-human identity must have an expiration date or regular renewal interval. Default to 90 days unless compelling business justification exists. Configure all service account creation processes to require expiration dates. Build automation to flag any secret or account not used in the last 90 days for immediate review. Break your own systems on a predictable schedule so attackers cannot do it unexpectedly.

4. Run quarterly unowned systems fire drills. Conduct exercises where stakeholders from each department explicitly enumerate what they own, what they rely on, and what they do not own. For each critical service, ask: what happens if this breaks and who gets paged? If the room goes silent, you found a problem. Force explanations of all dependencies. The goal is to surface exposures lurking in organizational blind spots before attackers find them.

5. Consolidate shadow automations into governed frameworks. Migrate ad-hoc scripts, workflows, and temporary solutions into sanctioned, monitored frameworks. Conduct discovery of all data movement and automation activity. Offer official, secure alternatives that meet business needs. Mandate migration timelines. Where business justification exists, formalize shadow workflows through proper integration patterns. Where justification is weak, terminate.

The Verdict

If a system's owner cannot be named, that system is already compromised.

Industrial control systems demonstrated average vulnerability windows of 5.3 years because no team claimed ownership.⁹ Dark hosts represented 70% of infrastructure in large organizations because nobody could access them for patching.⁷ Stolen credentials enabled 292-day attacker persistence because orphaned accounts had no monitoring.⁴ The pattern is consistent: absence of ownership guarantees absence of security.

The crisis of unowned systems represents the largest structural failure in modern enterprise security. It directly contributes to breach costs averaging $10.22 million in the United States,⁵ enables threat actor persistence approaching 300 days,⁴ and creates career risk for CISOs held accountable for infrastructure they cannot see.¹

Legacy Identity Governance and Administration cannot manage identity ratios of 144 to 1.⁶ Manual Zero Trust implementations leave gaps wherever assets remain unknown.¹³ The exponential growth of AI-generated infrastructure and cloud identity sprawl is accelerating faster than governance can adapt. Traditional security frameworks are not failing to protect you. They were never designed for the environment you operate in now.

The shift to ownership-centric security is not optional. It is the only path to reverse the accumulation of technical debt and reduce the Time-to-Contain metrics that determine financial survival. The five-action framework targets root causes rather than symptoms. These interventions establish scalable, auditable defense postures grounded in a fundamental principle: every digital asset must have a named owner actively accountable for its full lifecycle.

CISOs who fail to impose ownership discipline will not survive the next breach. The 72% turnover rate following system deficiency incidents¹ demonstrates that boards and investors are losing patience with invisible infrastructure. When 74% of organizations experience incidents due to unknown assets,³ when breaches average $10.22 million,⁵ and when a single update failure causes $15 billion in global losses,² ignorance is no longer a defensible position.

The unowned layer will not fix itself. It will not become visible through better scanning tools. It will not resolve through incremental process improvements. It will only grow larger, more complex, and more dangerous until a forcing function compels action.

That forcing function will either be you, or it will be the breach that ends your tenure.

References

1. R. Banker and Cecilia Feng, "The Impact of Information Security Breach Incidents on CIO Turnover," Journal of Information Systems, 2019.

2. Hafzullah Is, "Evaluating and Mitigating Cybersecurity Threats from System Update Vulnerabilities Through the CrowdStrike Case," European Journal of Technic, 2025.

3. Trend Micro, "New Research Reveals Three Quarters of Cybersecurity Incidents Occur Due to Unmanaged Assets," April 2025.

4. IBM Security, "Cost of a Data Breach Report 2024," 2024.

5. IBM Security, "Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025," 2025.

6. CyberArk, "Machine Identities Outnumber Humans by More Than 80 to 1: Fragmented Identity Security Report," 2025.

7. T. Allen and Enhao Liu, "Forecasting Cyber Maintenance Costs with Improved Scan Analytics Using Simulation," Online World Conference on Soft Computing in Industrial Applications, 2018.

8. Aksel Ethembabaoglu et al., "The Unpatchables: Why Municipalities Persist in Running Vulnerable Hosts," USENIX Security Symposium, 2024.

9. R. Thomas et al., "Catch Me If You Can: An In-Depth Study of CVE Discovery Time and Inconsistencies for Managing Risks in Critical Infrastructures," CPSIOTSEC@CCS, 2020.

10. Thales, "2025 Global Cloud Security Study," 2025.

11. Platon Kotzias et al., "Mind Your Own Business: A Longitudinal Study of Threats and Vulnerabilities in Enterprises," Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, 2019.

12. Peter Reichert, "Special Purpose IT Derailed: Unintended Consequences of Universal IT Laws and Policies," 2017.

13. NIST, "Zero Trust Architecture," Special Publication 800-207, 2020.

14. Verizon, "Data Breach Investigations Report 2025," 2025.

15. McKinsey & Company, "The Hidden Costs of Shadow IT," 2024.