The closing year of 2025 proved to be a turning point for cybersecurity in Europe. NIS2 enforcement came into effect, financial institutions implemented DORA, the AI Act began shaping the way AI systems are designed, and the Cyber Resilience Act reached its adoption phase. Throughout this year I spoke with dozens of CEOs and security directors — and virtually every one of those conversations came down to the same question: what awaits us in 2026, and how do we prepare for it?
It is not an easy question. The threat landscape is changing faster than ever, regulators are not slowing down, and budget pressure is not easing. Throughout 2025 I observed how organizations from various sectors — from finance, through manufacturing, to public administration — grappled with a new reality: security ceased to be the domain of the IT department and became a board-level priority. This article is my answer to that question. Based on what we actually observed over the past twelve months, and on what follows logically from the trends.
What cybersecurity trends will dominate 2026?
2025 proved that no sector is immune to cyberattacks and that the consequences of incidents extend far beyond direct financial losses. The Scattered Spider group’s campaign targeting the European telecommunications sector, a series of ransomware attacks on hospitals in the first quarter, supply chain incidents in the automotive sector — all of this shaped how organizations think about security as they enter 2026.
The trends that will dominate 2026 follow directly from the lessons of 2025. First, artificial intelligence on both sides of the divide — in the hands of attackers as well as defenders — will determine tactical advantage. Second, European regulations will enter a phase of mature enforcement, meaning real sanctions for those who fail to comply. Third, the model based on identity as the central point of protection will definitively replace the traditional perimeter-based approach.
The most important areas that set the trajectory for 2026 are the convergence of AI and security, the maturation of identity management, the consolidation of security tool stacks, the talent crisis and its consequences for delivery models, and the emergence of new attack vectors driven by technological acceleration. Each of these areas deserves separate discussion — and each has a direct bearing on the budgetary and strategic decisions that organizations must make in the first quarter of next year.
It is worth emphasizing one meta-fact: in 2026, an organization’s effectiveness in cybersecurity will be measured not by whether it possesses the right tools, but by whether it can integrate them into a coherent strategy. Tool fragmentation is costly — and it is not just about licensing.
📚 Read the complete guide: Cyberbezpieczeństwo: Kompletny przewodnik po cyberbezpieczeństwie dla zarządów i menedżerów
How will AI change both attacks and defense in the coming year?
Artificial intelligence has stopped being a buzzword in sales presentations. In 2025 it became an operational reality — on both the attacker and defender sides. What we will see in 2026 is not so much the emergence of AI in security as its maturation into the role of an autonomous actor.
On the attacker side we are already observing widespread use of large language models for the automatic generation of highly personalized phishing campaigns. The scale at which it is now possible to generate convincing messages in dozens of languages, tailored to a specific organizational role, industry context, and current events, is unprecedented. In 2025 we recorded an increase in the effectiveness of spear-phishing campaigns by several dozen percent compared to the previous year — precisely because the quality barrier for generating attack content has almost disappeared.
In 2026 the key threat will become autonomous AI agents on the attacker side. We are no longer talking only about AI assisting a human in constructing an attack — we are talking about systems capable of independently executing a full cycle: from reconnaissance, through vulnerability identification, to exploitation and lateral movement within the network. Research published in the second half of 2025 by several academic institutions shows that AI models are capable of autonomously chaining multi-step MITRE ATT&CK techniques without human intervention.
On the defensive side AI is becoming indispensable for managing complexity. Next-generation SIEM with an AI component no longer processes millions of logs — it categorizes, correlates, and prioritizes alerts in real time, reducing alert fatigue for SOC analysts. In 2026 organizations that have not yet deployed AI in security operations will be working with a fundamental inefficiency relative to attackers. The difference in operational tempo will become too large to ignore.
The key dividing line in 2026 will not run between organizations using AI and those that do not — almost everyone will be using it. The dividing line will run between those who can integrate AI into operational processes and make it part of the security culture, and those who purchased a license and are counting on autopilot.
📚 Read the complete guide: AI in security: Agentic AI Framework: How Autonomous AI Agents Are Changing Security Testing
How do regulations — NIS2 enforcement, CRA, DORA, EU AI Act — shape priorities?
2025 was a year of implementation. 2026 will be a year of enforcement — and enforcement in a new, sharper sense. I speak regularly with CISOs from the financial and energy sectors, and I can see a clear shift in mood: from “how do we formally meet the requirement?” to “how do we avoid problems when the inspector comes knocking?”.
NIS2 — the directive whose transposition into national legislation was completed in 2024 — entered a phase of active oversight by national authorities in 2025. This is no longer a matter of interpretation: supervisory bodies are actively conducting proceedings. In 2026 we expect the first high-profile enforcement decisions, including personal liability for senior managers. This is a fundamental change: the CEO is now responsible for the organization’s information security posture — not just the CISO.
DORA (Digital Operational Resilience Act), applicable from the beginning of 2025 for financial institutions, introduced new requirements for ICT risk management, operational resilience testing, and third-party vendor management. In 2026 supervisory authorities (the KNF in Poland, the EBA/ESMA at the European level) will increase the intensity of compliance reviews. Institutions that treated DORA as a compliance task rather than a risk management program will feel this painfully.
The Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) — adopted in 2024 and entering a phase of gradual application — fundamentally changes the liability of manufacturers of software and network-connected devices. In 2026 organizations that use open-source components or vendors without a clear security policy throughout the product lifecycle in their software supply chain will face problems. The procurement department will need to talk to the security department — which is a novelty for many companies.
The EU AI Act, whose key provisions concerning high-risk AI systems entered into force in 2025, directly affects organizations deploying AI in authorization, monitoring, or access decision processes. In 2026 CISOs and compliance teams will need to jointly map which AI systems within the organization are subject to rigorous requirements — in terms of explainability, auditability, and training data governance. This is a new field of responsibility that is only beginning to take shape.
The common denominator of all these regulations is clear: documentation and demonstrability. Organizations must not only implement appropriate controls, but be able to prove their effectiveness. In 2026 compliance evidence management will become a distinct competency.
Why is identity-first security replacing the network-first approach?
For years the basic model of protection was the perimeter — firewall, DMZ, VPN. It assumed that everything inside is trusted, everything outside — suspect. The COVID pandemic and the mass migration to the cloud destroyed this model definitively. In 2025 we observed systematic compromises of organizations that still built their security strategy around the network perimeter, ignoring the fact that 80% of their critical assets operate outside it.
The identity-first security model recognizes the user’s identity — and increasingly the identity of a machine or workload — as the fundamental unit of access control and trust verification. Instead of asking “is this IP address from our network?”, we ask “who is this entity, what is its context, and is this access request consistent with its normal behavior?”. This is a fundamentally different question and a fundamentally different architecture.
In 2026 several phenomena will accelerate this trend. The first is the growth of attacks on service accounts and machine identities. In the average enterprise organization there are several dozen machine identities per human user — certificates, API keys, service accounts, CI/CD tokens. These identities are often created ad hoc, rarely monitored, and even more rarely deprovisioned. Attackers know this is the weakest point, and in 2026 attacks on non-human identities will dominate.
The second catalyst is passwordless authentication as mainstream. In 2025 Microsoft, Google, and Apple announced further steps in eliminating passwords from enterprise ecosystems. In 2026 organizations that still base security on passwords — even two-factor via SMS — will be considered elevated risk by auditors and insurers. Passkeys and FIDO2 are ceasing to be an innovation and becoming the market standard.
The third phenomenon is next-generation Privileged Access Management (PAM) — integrated with SIEM, AI, and ITSM systems, capable of dynamically granting and revoking privileges based on session context rather than static roles. Organizations that use PAM merely as a password vault will discover in 2026 that the tool they purchased can do significantly more — provided they configure and integrate it properly.
I spoke with three CEOs of manufacturing companies this quarter. All of them had the same problem: incidents that were detected too late because security systems were looking at network traffic rather than anomalies in service account behavior. Identity-first security is not a trend — it is a response to the way attackers actually operate.
📚 Read the complete guide: Zero Trust: Zero Trust and Identity Management — A Defensive Strategy for Organizations
How is platform consolidation changing the security tools market?
Over the past five years the cybersecurity market has grown to more than 3,500 tool vendors. For organizations with a security budget of several million dollars, maintaining 30–50 point solutions has become an operational nightmare: different dashboards, different licensing models, different APIs, different update cycles, different support levels. Integrating these tools consumes more time than actually using them in security operations.
In 2025 the consolidation trend gained clear momentum. Organizations began actively reducing the number of vendors, preferring platforms offering broad functional coverage — even at the cost of best-in-class metrics in individual categories. A Gartner study from mid-2025 indicated that more than 70% of CISOs are seeking to reduce the number of security vendors over the next 24 months.
In 2026 XDR (Extended Detection and Response) platforms will become the standard for mature organizations. Integrating telemetry from endpoints, networks, cloud, identity, and applications into a single detection and response orchestration engine is ceasing to be a luxury and becoming an operational requirement. The key question is no longer “whether XDR?”, but “which XDR platform and how deeply to integrate?”.
In parallel we observe consolidation in the SASE (Secure Access Service Edge) segment — combining networking functions (SD-WAN) with security functions (CASB, SWG, ZTNA) into a single cloud-delivered platform. In 2026 organizations with a hybrid model with multiple branches or remote workers will be under increasing pressure to shift their network architecture toward SASE — not because it is fashionable, but because the alternative (managing separate stacks of VPNs, firewalls, and proxies) is becoming cost-ineffective.
An important caveat: consolidation carries the risk of vendor lock-in and single point of failure. In 2026 mature organizations will negotiate contracts with data portability clauses and exit plans — a lesson learned from 2025, when several major vendors went through restructurings or acquisitions, complicating the situation for their customers.
For companies managed by MSPs or MSSPs, platform consolidation is simultaneously an opportunity: a simplified tool stack is easier to deliver as a service in a managed model. In 2026 the value proposition of managed security will grow — precisely because consolidated platforms are far more cost-effective to operate as a service than a mosaic of 40 point solutions.
How will the talent shortage affect security delivery models?
The shortage of cybersecurity specialists is not new news — it has been discussed for years. But in 2025 it became an operational problem, not a statistical one. I spoke with several CISOs who said outright: “I have an approved budget, I have open positions, but I cannot fill them.” The gap between need and talent availability amounts to millions of specialists globally. In Poland — several tens of thousands.
In 2026 this shortage will shape the market in three directions. The first is the expansion of the MSSP (Managed Security Service Providers) market. Organizations that cannot build their own 24/7 SOC will increasingly turn to SOC-as-a-Service, MDR (Managed Detection and Response), and managed threat hunting services. This is not a decision driven by a lack of ambition — it is a rational economic calculation. Building an internal SOC requires a minimum of 3–4 years and investments that are difficult to justify to the board when the alternative is available on the market.
The second direction is automation through SOAR and AI. Security Orchestration, Automation and Response (SOAR) platforms took over many repetitive SOC analyst tasks in 2025. In 2026 automation will cross the next threshold: playbooks will no longer merely replay predefined scenarios, but will adaptively select a response based on incident context. AI-powered SOAR will reduce demand for L1/L2 staff in SOC operations — but will increase demand for engineers capable of designing and maintaining these systems.
The third direction is upskilling and role redefinition. In 2025 the European Commission, through the Cybersecurity Skills Academy, intensified certification programs. In Poland, CERT Polska and NASK launched a series of training initiatives. In 2026 organizations that invest in raising the security competencies of existing IT personnel will be in a better position than those that rely solely on recruitment. Converting systems administrators into cloud security specialists or SOC analysts is difficult, but cheaper and faster than searching for ready-made experts.
An important conclusion for boards: the talent shortage is a permanent feature of the market, not a temporary difficulty. The security strategy for 2026 must assume that access to specialists will be limited — and must design the architecture and operational models in such a way as to minimize dependence on their numbers and maximize their effectiveness.
What new attack vectors will emerge in 2026?
The threat landscape is an ecosystem — it evolves with technology, regulations, and organizational changes. In 2025 we saw several warning signals that in 2026 will develop into full trends.
Attacks on AI infrastructure and machine learning models are the most novel and potentially most destabilizing vector. Organizations deployed in 2025 the first production AI systems in decision-making processes — document analysis, payment authorization, credit risk assessment, security incident triaging. These systems are becoming targets. Prompt injection — manipulating LLM models through malicious inputs — is no longer an academic scenario, but an operational threat. In 2026 “AI security” will become a distinct discipline within organizations’ cybersecurity programs.
Attacks on OT/ICS environments and industrial IoT are escalating. In 2025 several incidents in the energy and water sectors in Europe revealed that many OT installations are connected to corporate networks without adequate segmentation controls. In 2026 IT/OT convergence will accelerate — driven by Industry 4.0 and energy efficiency initiatives — creating new attack surfaces. Organizations with OT infrastructure must in 2026 treat OT security as a first-order priority, not as an add-on to the IT security program.
Deepfake and voice cloning in social engineering is a phenomenon that in 2025 crossed the threshold of operational risk. Several high-profile incidents — including the case of a faked video conference with the “CEO” of a financial sector company in Asia, which cost tens of millions of dollars — demonstrated that deepfake technology is good enough to deceive people under conditions of stress. In 2026 BEC (Business Email Compromise) attacks will evolve into BVC (Business Voice Compromise) attacks. Identity verification in payment authorization and bank data change processes will become critical.
Quantum attacks: not yet in 2026, but “harvest now, decrypt later” is already happening. Quantum computers capable of breaking RSA-2048 will not appear in 2026 — but attackers are already collecting encrypted traffic, counting on decrypting it in the future. Organizations storing sensitive data for 10+ years (medical records, legal data, intellectual property) should in 2026 begin assessing their readiness for post-quantum cryptography (PQC) — because the migration will take years, and the clock is already ticking.
Attacks on identities in multi-cloud and hybrid environments will intensify. As organizations operate across AWS, Azure, GCP, and their own data centers simultaneously, managing identity and entitlements is becoming extremely complex. IAM misconfigurations in cloud environments were one of the most common breach vectors in 2025. In 2026 Cloud Infrastructure Entitlement Management (CIEM) will become a standard component of mature security programs.
How should organizations prioritize their security budget for 2026?
This is the question that almost every CEO or CFO I speak with in the fourth quarter of the year asks me. The answer is always somewhat uncomfortable: it depends on the organization’s starting point. There is no universal “top 5 investments” list that will work for everyone — but there are several budget allocation principles that will be particularly significant in 2026.
Principle one: measure before you buy. Too many organizations buy new tools without knowing whether the previous ones work. Before allocating new budget in 2026 it is worth conducting an audit of the existing tool stack — how many of them are actually configured, monitored, and actively used? Research consistently shows that organizations use on average 30–40% of the capabilities of the tools they purchase. Optimizing existing investments often yields a better return than new purchases.
Principle two: measure cybersecurity ROI through the lens of insurance. The cyber-insurance market in 2025 became significantly more demanding. Insurers conduct detailed due diligence before issuing a policy and make premiums contingent on the state of security controls. Organizations with MFA, EDR, PAM, and network segmentation pay significantly lower premiums. In 2026 analyzing the security budget through the lens of “what will allow us to maintain or reduce our insurance premium?” is a fully justified methodology.
Principle three: regulations as drivers of priorities. If your organization is subject to NIS2, DORA, or sectoral regulations — these define the non-negotiable minimum for 2026. There is no point investing in advanced threat hunting if there is no basic documentation of security processes required by NIS2. The compliance baseline must be the foundation on which maturity is built.
Principle four: people before technology. The most expensive tool is useless without competent people. In 2026 organizations that invest in training, certifications, and security awareness for the entire organization (not just the IT department) will achieve better results than those that purchase additional platforms. Training employees in recognizing phishing — particularly deepfake phishing — has a higher ROI than most technology products.
Principle five: security must be built in, not bolted on. Shift-left in DevSecOps processes, security by design in new IT projects, threat modeling at the architecture stage — these are investments that in 2026 begin to pay off as reduced costs of fixing defects detected in production. The cost of fixing a vulnerability at the design stage is 10–100 times lower than at the production stage.
Specific areas that should be on the priority list for most organizations in 2026: strengthening identity management (MFA, PAM, CIEM), modernizing detection and response (EDR/XDR, MDR), automating compliance and documentation, resilience testing (penetration tests, BAS — Breach and Attack Simulation), and managing supply chain security.
What does the strategic priority map for 2026 look like?
The table below presents the strategic priority map for 2026 — taking into account the area, urgency level, primary driver, and recommended action. It serves as a starting point for security program planning, not as a ready-made prescription for every organization.
| Area | Urgency | Driver | Recommended Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity and Access Management (IAM/PAM) | Critical | Dominant attack vector in 2025, identity-first security | Deploy MFA everywhere, inventory machine identities, PAM with dynamic Just-in-Time access |
| NIS2 / DORA compliance | Critical | Enforcement, personal liability of senior managers | Gap audit, remediation plan, process documentation, vendor registry |
| Detection and Response (EDR/XDR/MDR) | High | Increasing attack complexity, AI-driven threats | Assess current coverage, consider MDR if lacking SOC resources, integrate with SIEM |
| Cloud security and CIEM | High | Multi-cloud expansion, IAM misconfigurations | Inventory cloud entitlements, deploy CIEM, regular configuration reviews |
| Vendor management (supply chain security) | High | CRA, NIS2 art. 21, supply chain attacks | Risk-based vendor classification, audits, contractual security clauses |
| Security automation (SOAR/BAS) | Medium | Talent shortage, need to scale | Deploy SOAR for repetitive playbooks, regular BAS testing |
| AI systems security | Medium | EU AI Act, new attack vectors (prompt injection) | Inventory AI systems, risk assessment per AI Act, AI security policy |
| Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) | Low–Medium | Final NIST PQC standards, “harvest now, decrypt later” | Cryptographic asset assessment (crypto-agility audit), migration roadmap |
| OT/ICS security | Sector-dependent | IT/OT convergence, NIS2 for critical operators | OT segmentation, OT asset inventory, security program for industrial environments |
| Training and security awareness | High | Deepfake phishing, BVC, human factor | Regular phishing training, role-adapted awareness programs, deepfake simulations |
How does nFlo prepare clients for the challenges of 2026?
At nFlo we serve more than 200 clients — from small businesses to large enterprises and public institutions. Over the course of nearly a year we have delivered more than 500 security projects, which have given us a unique perspective on what actually works in Polish and European organizations, and what remains at the level of declarations.
I see several things that distinguish organizations that made it through 2025 without serious incidents from those that did not. The first difference: the former had functioning processes — not perfect tools. Documented incident response procedures, regular exercises, clear lines of accountability. When an incident occurred, they knew what to do. The latter bought better software, but when the alarm went off, nobody knew who should make the decision.
The second difference: the former tested their safeguards regularly. Not once a year, but quarterly or even continuously. Breach and Attack Simulation, penetration tests, red team exercises — this is not a luxury, it is a necessity. If your safeguards have never been tested under simulated attack conditions, you do not know whether they work.
In response to the challenges of 2026, nFlo offers a package of services designed with three maturity phases in mind. For organizations building foundations: a security audit, gap analysis against NIS2/DORA, a zero trust architecture design, and implementation of basic controls (MFA, EDR, PAM). For organizations strengthening operations: SOC as a Service with a response time of under 15 minutes, Managed Detection and Response (MDR), penetration testing, and automated security validation. For organizations achieving maturity: threat hunting, a vendor risk management program, CIEM for multi-cloud environments, and a BAS program.
Our 98% client retention rate stems from one thing: we speak with clients as partners, not vendors. We are direct when we see that an organization is buying a solution it does not need, or is deferring an investment that is essential. In 2026 this approach will be more important than ever — because budgets are limited and the threat landscape is too complex for decisions to be made without a full picture.
If you are on the threshold of planning your security budget and strategy for 2026 and want to have that conversation — my team is available. We do not start with a product catalog. We start with the question: where are you now, and where do you need to get to?
Related concepts
Explore the key terms related to this article in our cybersecurity glossary:
- NIS2 — NIS2 is the EU Network and Information Security directive introducing obligations for essential and important entities…
- Zero Trust — Zero Trust is a security model that assumes no implicit trust for any user or system…
- SOC — A Security Operations Center is a center of security operations that monitors and responds to incidents…
- AI Act — The AI Act is an EU regulation governing AI systems by risk category, with obligations for developers and users…
- DORA — The Digital Operational Resilience Act is an EU regulation requiring financial institutions to maintain ICT operational resilience…
Learn more
Explore related articles in our knowledge base:
- Zero Trust and Identity Management IAM: A Defensive Strategy for Modern Organizations
- NIS2 Implementation Strategy: A 90-Day Action Plan
- Key CISO Challenges in 2025: From Alert Fatigue to Budget Pressure
- Agentic AI Framework: How Autonomous AI Agents Are Changing Security Testing
- New Ransomware Attack Trends in 2025: How to Defend Your Business?
Check our services
Need cybersecurity support? See:
- Security audits — comprehensive assessment of your security posture
- Penetration testing — identification of vulnerabilities in your infrastructure
- SOC as a Service — round-the-clock security monitoring
- Identity management — protection of identities and access in your organization
Frequently asked questions
What are the most important cybersecurity trends in 2026?
The key trends are: autonomous AI attacks, the shift to an identity-first security model, consolidation of security platforms (XDR, SASE), tighter enforcement of NIS2 and DORA regulations, talent shortages driving adoption of MSSP/MDR services, and the emergence of new attack vectors — against AI systems, OT infrastructure, and using deepfake in social engineering.
Which regulations have the greatest impact on organizational security in 2026?
The four regulatory pillars are: NIS2 in its active enforcement phase with personal liability for managers, DORA for financial institutions with more intensive compliance reviews, the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) changing requirements for software manufacturers, and the EU AI Act introducing security requirements for high-risk AI systems. Organizations subject to multiple of these regulations should create a unified compliance framework.
Why is the identity-first security model replacing the traditional network perimeter-based approach?
The network perimeter lost its relevance when critical assets moved to the cloud, users work remotely, and applications are accessible over the internet. Attackers do not “break through” the firewall — they steal identities or compromise service accounts and move like legitimate users. The identity-first model treats identity — human and machine — as the fundamental unit of access control and trust verification, which corresponds to the actual methods attackers use.
How will the cybersecurity specialist shortage affect organizations in 2026?
The talent shortage accelerates adoption of managed services (MSSP, MDR, SOC-as-a-Service) and solutions that automate security operations (SOAR with AI components). Organizations that cannot build an internal 24/7 SOC should consider partnering with a security services provider. It is also key to invest in upskilling existing IT personnel and to design the security architecture to minimize dependence on specialist headcount.
How can nFlo help an organization prepare for the security challenges of 2026?
nFlo offers comprehensive support — from audits and gap analysis against NIS2/DORA, through zero trust architecture deployments and identity management implementations, to SOC as a Service with a guaranteed response time of under 15 minutes. We serve more than 200 clients with a 98% retention rate, delivering more than 500 security projects. The starting point is always an individual security assessment and tailoring the strategy to the organization’s actual needs and capabilities — not the sale of a ready-made package. Contact our team to arrange a free consultation.
Sources
- NIS2 Directive (EU 2022/2555) — Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union
- DORA Regulation (EU 2022/2554) — Digital Operational Resilience Act for the financial sector
- Cyber Resilience Act (EU 2024/2847) — Regulation on cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements
- EU AI Act (EU 2024/1689) — Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence
- NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) — final PQC standards published by NIST in 2024
- ENISA Threat Landscape 2025 — the annual report of the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity
- Gartner Security & Risk Management Summit 2025 — reports and forecasts on security market consolidation and XDR/SASE trends
- MITRE ATT&CK Framework v16 — knowledge base of attacker tactics and techniques
- ISC2 Cybersecurity Workforce Study 2025 — study of the global cybersecurity talent shortage
