Most conversations about insider threats focus on rogue employees who steal data, sabotage systems, or leak secrets. Yet history shows that executives themselves can embody the threat. When leaders misuse their authority, exploit employees, or collude with external actors, the insider threat shifts from a single bad actor to an organizational betrayal.
The Expanding Definition of Insider Threat
Traditionally, insider threat programs were designed to catch employees who acted against their company. But recent reports highlight that senior managers and executives are often the greatest risk. IBM’s 2024 Insider Threat Report found that 83 percent of organizations experienced insider attacks in 2024, with many incidents tied to executives misusing privileged access (IBM 2024 Insider Threat Report). StationX’s 2025 statistics echoed this, revealing that 81 percent of cybersecurity leaders identify senior managers as the most dangerous insider threat risk because of their unrestricted access to sensitive employee and operational data (StationX 2025 Insider Threat Statistics).
This shift in perspective is critical. It means insider threat is not just about protecting companies from employees. It is also about protecting employees from companies.
Historical Cases Where Executives Were the Insider Threat
- Ubiquiti Breach (2021): A senior insider with executive level access stole gigabytes of sensitive data and attempted extortion, demanding nearly $2 million. He tried to disguise the theft as an external attack, showing how leadership level insiders can manipulate systems and deceive investigators (FBI Press Release, 2021).
- Desjardins Group Fallout (2019): An employee leaked data on nearly 9.7 million customers, but executive oversight failures were so severe that the CEO resigned. The case highlighted how leadership negligence can itself become an insider threat by enabling massive data leaks (CBC News, 2019).
- Capital One Breach Accountability (2019–2020): After a misconfigured firewall led to one of the largest financial breaches, investigations pointed to executive level decisions around cloud architecture and risk acceptance. Leadership choices directly contributed to the scale of the breach (U.S. Senate Report, 2020).
These cases show that insider threats can originate from leadership misuse or negligence, not just disgruntled staff.
Recent Breaches Attributed to Executives (2024–2025)
The most recent insider threat reports emphasize how executives themselves are increasingly implicated. Here are three examples where breaches were directly tied to leadership misuse:
- Executive Credential Misuse: April 2025 (NITSIG Report)
Executives used privileged access to manipulate financial systems and employee records. One senior manager accessed HR databases to retaliate against whistleblowers, while another embezzled funds through internal accounting platforms (NITSIG Insider Threat Incidents Report, April 2025). - Credential Theft by Executives: DeepStrike 2025
DeepStrike confirmed that executive level insiders were responsible for some of the costliest breaches, with credential theft averaging $779,000 per incident. These breaches often involved executives bypassing internal controls and accessing sensitive systems undetected for weeks. Containment times averaged 81 days, allowing damage to escalate (DeepStrike Insider Threat Statistics 2025). - Executive Misuse in Hybrid Cloud Environments: IBM 2024
IBM reported that executives were increasingly implicated in insider attacks within hybrid cloud setups. Their access to cloud credentials and strategic systems made them high risk actors. Several breaches were traced back to leadership misuse of cloud infrastructure (IBM Insider Threats 2024).
These examples confirm that executives are not immune to insider threat scrutiny. Their access, authority, and ability to override controls make them uniquely dangerous when acting maliciously or negligently.
Why Leadership Insider Threats Are So Dangerous
Executives and senior managers pose unique risks because:
- They often have unrestricted access to sensitive employee data.
- Their decisions can conceal wrongdoing or retaliate against whistleblowers.
- They can manipulate systems without immediate detection.
- Their authority makes it harder for employees to challenge or report abuse.
This combination of access and authority makes leadership driven insider threats more damaging than traditional cases.
Protecting Employees From Executives
The conversation about insider threat must evolve. It is no longer enough to monitor employees. Organizations must also hold executives accountable and build safeguards that protect employees from exploitation. This includes:
- Independent oversight of executive access to sensitive data.
- Strong whistleblower protections.
- Transparent investigations when leadership is implicated.
- Sector specific monitoring, especially in finance and healthcare where employee data is most vulnerable.
Conclusion
Insider threat is not just about rogue employees. It is about power, trust, and accountability. When executives themselves become the insider threat, the damage is deeper because it erodes the very foundation of trust between employer and employee. The lesson from recent years is clear. Insider threat programs must expand their scope to include leadership and organizational behavior. Only then can employees be truly protected.
Leave a Reply