The state of cyber resilience amongst UK organisations

Compared to a year ago, cyber resilience in the UK is improving. Security leaders are reporting signs of stronger visibility, broader controls and a better understanding of cyber risk in general.

However, when resilience is tested in a live scenario, confidence drops.

Clearly, there's a growing gap between perceived improvement and operational confidence. In Gamma Communications' UK Cyber Resilience Benchmark Report, 81% of organisations have seen an improvement in their cyber resilience. Yet less than one in four of these organisations are confident in their security approach would hold during a major security incident.

It's a disconnect that matters. Attackers won't put resilience to the test through theory or speculation. They'll strike in the quiet hours of the morning, targeting disjointed systems managed by stressed teams and overburdened suppliers.

For security leaders, they need to ask whether their organisation can execute under pressure. Once, the conversation revolved around investment in security tools. But now, it's whether these teams, partners and the tools available can work as they should in a real-world scenario.

Why coordination matters more than controls

When resilience fails, it tends to be down to breakdowns in coordination. It's rarely about technological gaps nowadays.

Security teams are tasked with interpreting alerts and assessing impact during a live incident. They need to make decisions quickly, while often having to navigate complex hybrid estates.

Confidence disappears if visibility is fragmented or there's no clear process around ownership and escalation paths. Even if the technology underneath is strong, it'll be hard to recover.

That's why organisations need to pressure‑test how incidents are handled. It shouldn't just be a quick-fire assessment around threat detection. Instead, ask those necessary questions like:

• Who's leading the response at each stage of an incident?
• How quickly can teams see what is happening across both internal and external systems?
• When a decision must be made, how effectively do internal teams and partners coordinate?

The ability for people, processes and platforms to come together in the event of an incident is what defines resilience.

How hybrid security is changing the risk equation

48% of organisations now operate hybrid security models, combining internal teams with managed services, cloud platforms and specialist providers. It reflects how cyber defence has become too complex to rely on just a single team or capability.

But sharing responsibility across multiple parties can cause confusion around leadership and accountability. Hybrid security models demand clarity by design.

A clear definition around roles, responsibilities and escalation paths makes a difference. If they're in place, organisations are better equipped to deal with an incident when it occurs.

Leadership teams require a consistent, unified view of activity across the environment. Without shared visibility, these flexible hybrid models will add operational risk.

The weak points: Human behaviour and supplier risk

Even with technological advances, the human element poses the biggest risk to operations.

Phishing, identity compromise and supply chain exposure are all persistent challenges. Think of a convincing-looking email from a 'colleague', or how a trusted third party becomes a compromised access route. It rarely begins with a technical failure.

A growing digital ecosystem means more potential entry points. Improving resilience requires the need to treat identity and behaviour as frontline controls. That means:

• Monitoring how users and suppliers interact with systems.
• Reducing unnecessary access requests and standing privileges.
• Ensuring third‑party access is governed, visible and continuously reviewed.

While technology enables resilience, behaviour determines how attacks are carried out.

How complexity quietly undermines incident response

50% of organisations believe their security stacks, although complex, remain effective. Once an incident occurs, these stacks are put to the test.

Steady technological investment has created a large, often overlapping collection of systems. Each one is individually valuable, but together, they're difficult to manage. When a fast‑moving incident occurs, all this complexity creates noise, delays necessary investigations and increases the load on responders.

Resilience increasingly depends on simplification and integration. In practice, fewer, well integrated tools make it easier for teams to share context and respond effectively during these incidents.

Right now, security leaders must ask if their architecture allows teams to respond quickly or delay action.

AI's role in accelerating attackers and delaying defenders

Most organisations will expect AI‑enabled attacks to shape the threat landscape of the future. Many are already seeing early signals through phishing and reconnaissance.

But while attackers are operationalising AI quickly, defensive adoption remains steadily cautious. Deployment within day-to-day decision-making is still limited.

Only 15% of organisations are actively using AI in their security operations. A further 16% haven't even considered AI usage, creating a short‑term imbalance where speed and scale outpace caution.

AI isn't a standalone capability. To support resilience, it must operate within clear guardrails that's embedded into existing workflows, tooling and response processes. Human oversight is retained at key decision points.

Organisations that benefit most from AI will be those that apply it with intent. These systems are governed, tested, and integrated with purpose. They influence how incidents are detected, investigated and resolved, rather than being experimented with in isolation.

It's time to close the resilience gap

When taken together, cyber resilience isn't defined by individual controls or technologies.

Now, it's down to readiness. It's that ability to respond quickly, coordinate effectively and maintain clarity under pressure.

Closing the resilience gap requires an integral shift in focus. It's time for organisations to move:

• From adding tools to improving how they work together.
• From theoretical capability to tested response.
• From technology alone to people, processes and partners.

The threat landscape is now dominated by automation, complexity and speed. Only those organisations that are the most operationally prepared can respond with that much-needed confidence.

Learn how to create a more secure, resilient communications ecosystem by reaching out to Gamma Communications today.