EU and U.S. breach notification laws require companies to report security breaches – but is transparency important for anything beyond compliance?

Many organizations announce breaches late – and leave clients, employees, and partners in the dark. That late response begs the question: is transparency: good or bad for a company’s reputation?

Although seen as a good ethical position, mishandled transparency has its downsides. For instance, ex-CISO Joe Sullivan was found guilty of burying a data breach during the Uber cover-up scandal.

This shows how regulatory obligations can clash with reputational risk when dealing with transparency following a breach. Below, we outline how transparency changes following a cyberattack.

1. Building Trust with Directors

Possibly the greatest benefit is the trust that transparency creates with clients, employees, and shareholders. Organizations reporting a breach are showing openness to ethical standards. Trust is the most important currency of the digital age and even bad news builds trust to some degree.

2. Incident Response and Mitigation

Upon disclosure of a breach, parties can take steps to limit damage. So customers can reset passwords and partners can check for exposure. Transparency helps organizations prevent damage from occurring earlier by mitigating the risk. Sometimes this quick communication can avoid widespread harm and demonstrate leadership in a crisis.

3. Aligning with Regulatory Compliance

Some countries require transparency via data breach notification regulations. GDPR, for example, mandates that companies report a data breach within 72 hours or face huge fines. Beyond compliance, organizations that proactively disclose breaches avoid lawsuits, additional fines, or regulatory scrutiny later on.

4. The Overall Cybersecurity Posture

Transparency following an attack encourages assertive security measures in organizations. Openness about vulnerabilities and responses to breaches increases strain on a business to correct security practices, which creates better cybersecurity frameworks along with an overall culture of accountability.

5. Controlling the Narrative

Being transparent gives companies control of the story about the breach. If an organization covers up an incident or delays it, someone else will leak the information, leading to a PR disaster. Early disclosure avoids having to interpret the situation externally, which could be much more damaging.

1. Reputational Damage

While transparency can build confidence, it can also damage an organization’s reputation. Disclosing a breach can create a perception of negligence or incompetence, especially if the attack resulted from vulnerable cybersecurity practices. Employees, customers and partners may lose confidence in the company’s ability to protect sensitive information.

2. Impact on Stock Prices

Transparency can impact a company’s stock price right after a breach announcement. Investors might react badly and share value will decrease. For significant breaches, this particular effect might last, especially if the market perceives the organization as having inadequate security controls.

3. Legal and Financial Exposure

Not being transparent about a breach could cost the organization lawsuits or regulatory fines. Also, disclosures could result in contractual penalties or could damage relationships with business partners beyond repair. As with Uber’s breach cover-up, the company ultimately faced legal and financial consequences once the incident became public. Disclosing breaches immediately can open a Pandora’s box of liabilities.

4. Public Scrutiny and Loss of Control

Organizations revealing a security breach often face intense public scrutiny. The press and industry experts might question the company’s cybersecurity measures and response to the incident. Transparency can often leave you without control of the narrative and stakeholders or the media may interpret the incident negatively. Even well-managed disclosures can draw unwanted attention and criticism.

5. Potential for Misuse of Information

Giving away specifics about a breach, such as exploited vulnerabilities, can unintentionally help other cybercriminals by giving them useful information about possible targets. The likelihood of future attacks on the company and its competitors in the industry is raised by this transparency.

How transparent organizations should be after a cyberattack is not a straightforward question. Although regulatory compliance demands openness, businesses must also protect their reputation, legal standing, and stakeholders.

Transparency breeds trust and moral responsibility, but too much openness breeds risks, financially, legally, and reputationally.

Being transparent means not disclosing every detail, but sharing enough to satisfy compliance requirements, respond to stakeholder concerns, and maintain control of the situation.

For example, companies might say a breach happened, and share how they are responding, and how customers can protect themselves, without disclosing technical details that would help other attackers.

Transparency is ultimately a strategic choice. The more prepared an organization is – technically as well as in crisis communication – the better they will be at balancing openness with long-term protection. But how transparency is managed matters more than whether it simply exists or not.

Cyberthreats vary from advanced malware to insider attacks. BlackFog’s anti data exfiltration (ADX) technology protects against these risks completely.

Using advanced AI-based algorithms, our enterprise ADX solution stops cyberattacks and data exfiltration in real time.

This preventative approach also provides 24/7 protection without human intervention, unlike most cybersecurity solutions available today.

Schedule a demo and see how BlackFog defends enterprises against cyberthreats.