Insider risk management needs a human strategy
Insider risk is not just about bad actors. Most of the time, it’s about mistakes. Someone sends a sensitive file to the wrong address, or uploads a document to their personal cloud to work from home. In many cases, there is no ill intent, since many insider incidents are caused by negligence, not malice.
Still, malicious insiders can be devastating. Some steal intellectual property, others are bribed or pressured by outside groups to plant ransomware, exfiltrate trade secrets, or shut down operations.
The impact of insider risk is being felt across an organization and is no longer limited to the cybersecurity team. 86% say an insider event would impact company culture, according to Code42.
Detection is not enough
Businesses that appropriately restrict data are twice as likely to avoid insider attacks, according to Zach Capers, senior security analyst at Capterra. Organizations should apply the principle of least privilege, ensuring employees have access only to the data necessary for their job. Highly privileged users should be closely monitored, and the use of administrative rights should be kept to a minimum.
It is tempting to rely on tools. Modern platforms can flag odd behavior, track file movements, and alert security teams. But detection does not solve the deeper problem.
A technical-only response to insider risk can miss the mark, we need to understand the human side. That means paying attention to patterns, motivations, and culture. Over-monitoring without context can drive good people away and increase risk instead of reducing it.
When it comes to workplace monitoring, clarity and openness matter. “Transparency starts with intentional communication,” said Itai Schwartz, CTO of MIND. That means being upfront with employees, not just that monitoring is happening, but what’s being monitored, why it matters, and how it helps protect both the company and its people.
According to Schwartz, organizations often gain employee support when they clearly connect monitoring to security, rather than surveillance. “Employees deserve to know that monitoring is about securing data – not surveilling individuals,” he said. If people can see how it benefits them and the business, they’re more likely to support it.
Being specific is key. Schwartz advises clearly outlining what kinds of activities, data, or systems are being watched, and explaining how alerts are triggered. “Documentation should be easy to find, straightforward to understand and reinforced during onboarding and training,” he said.
Ethical monitoring also means drawing boundaries. Schwartz emphasized the importance of proportionality: collecting only what’s relevant and necessary. “Allow employees to understand how their behavior impacts risk, and use that information to guide, not punish,” he said. And if your monitoring approach can’t be comfortably shared with your team? “It likely needs refinement.”
Ultimately, Schwartz said, the goal is to “build systems that respect user privacy while protecting organizational data.”
Simple policies, smart access control
Often, employees do not know they are creating risk. Confusing policies make this worse. Security teams should write policies that are short, and tied to specific job roles.
Do not bury expectations in a PDF no one reads. Train people using real examples, and show them what secure behavior looks like in their daily tasks.
Least privilege remains a top control. Limit employee access to only the files and systems they need. But do not set it and forget it. Permissions change when people change jobs, take on new projects, or switch teams.
Review access regularly. Identity governance tools offer automated workflows to manage and audit access.
Rigid security protocols, such as complex authentication processes and highly restrictive access controls, can frustrate employees, slow productivity and lead to unsafe workarounds, according to Ivanti.
In building effective security policies, simplicity and usability should come first. “The best security policies are practical, context-aware and human-friendly,” said Eran Barak, CEO of MIND. Rather than relying on rigid rules that punish missteps, Barak argues for policies that guide behavior in ways that make sense for how people actually work.
That starts with observation. Instead of designing policies in a vacuum, Barak recommends studying workflows and shaping rules around them. “Start by understanding how employees work, then tailor policies around those patterns,” he said. Vague directives don’t help much, so it’s better to include specifics—what’s okay to share in Slack, what not to paste into an AI chatbot, and when to flag something suspicious.
To keep policies relevant, Barak advises building in feedback loops. Policies shouldn’t stay static as the risk landscape shifts. “They should evolve, not stagnate,” he said. And importantly, they shouldn’t be handed down from the top without input. “Co-create policies with your teams,” he said. “People who feel ownership over security decisions are far more likely to adopt them.”
When enforcement is needed, it doesn’t have to be harsh. Barak suggests using automated tools to deliver gentle nudges in real time—think educational messages or prompts that ask users to explain their actions. Escalate only when necessary. “Start with gentle speed bumps and education messages in near real-time at the point of policy violation and allow for the user to provide a reason,” he said.
And above all, keep it simple. “If a policy can’t be explained in a few bullet points or a Slack message delivered at the moment, it’s too complex,” Barak said.
Behavior matters more than activity
Human behavior remains a significant vulnerability in even the most secure environments. Cybersecurity leaders must therefore adopt a proactive,
human-centric approach to managing risk, according to Mimecast.
Logging every click is not helpful. Instead, look for signs of change. Did a user start logging in at strange hours? Did they download large volumes of data before resigning?
Behavioral analytics tools can surface these trends. But people should still be part of the review process. Algorithms can flag, but humans must decide what is risky.
According to Josh Harr, CSO of Protasec, securing executive buy-in and building broad awareness are essential. “I believe buy-in and awareness of the risk itself is first and foremost,” Harr says. “I have provided executives with the cost of not using the data we have in the organization to ensure we do not have a heightened risk of insider threat.”
That awareness shouldn’t stop at the top. “Awareness is also practical to the organization as a whole,” he adds. Harr advocates for incremental training across all levels, particularly directors and managers, to help them recognize potential red flags in behavior. “Incrementally training directors, managers, and others on how to identify behavior goes a long way.”
To operationalize this awareness, Harr has implemented insider risk scorecards across organizations. These tools analyze signals like phishing simulation results, endpoint activity, and malware risk scores at the individual level. “These scorecards allow the organization a risk-based approach in investigations and threat hunting,” he explains. “By baselining the organizational behavior of individuals on systems, leaders can have a comprehensive visibility into where risks lie, keeping them well-informed.”
Another underutilized tool in reducing insider risk is a practice already common in many industries: access attestation. “Annual access reviews help prevent scope creep in access,” Harr notes — but only if done in conjunction with behavior monitoring and training. “Only if the aforementioned is performed,” he cautions.
Make it safe to speak up
Security depends on culture. Employees must feel safe reporting mistakes or suspicious actions. If they fear punishment, they will stay silent, and risks will grow.
“Regularly acknowledging and celebrating cyber-secure behaviors on the team not only uplifts those who are diligent but also inspires others to get involved. This could entail recognizing individuals who follow best practices, identify potential security threats, or contribute to improving security,” explains Emily Wienhold, Cyber Education Specialist at Optiv.
Anonymous reporting tools, open-door policies, and support from HR all help. So does reminding people that the goal is protection, not punishment.
Culture plays a big role in preventing insider incidents. Empathy and training matter just as much as tech.
“Creating a security-first mindset across the organization – through training and clear communication – ensures risk management adapts to new threats, supporting both innovation and compliance,” said Chris Wysopal, Chief Security Evangelist at Veracode.
Partner with HR and legal
CISOs cannot do this alone. HR teams can detect disengagement and flag early signs of trouble. Legal helps navigate privacy and compliance rules.
Build a small cross-functional team to manage insider risk. That team should review monitoring decisions, guide investigations, and protect employee rights.
“Genuine negligence or deliberate actions should be handled appropriately, but apportioning blame and meting out punishment must be the final step in an objective, reasonable investigation. It should certainly not be the default reaction,” notes Kai Roer, CEO, Praxis Security Labs.