Cybersecurity Metrics Boards Actually Care About

INTRODUCTION

You’re a third-party risk management professional. You spend weeks building a board report, filling slide decks with data, scores, and dashboards. Then you present it, and the glazed-over eyes of the board tell you the truth: they don’t care about your cyber report.

This isn’t about apathy. It’s about a failure to translate technical risk into the language of the business. On the second episode of the Third Party podcast, hosts Jeffrey Wheatman, Ferhat Dikbiyik, and Bob Maley stripped away the jargon to reveal the truth: your board cares about three things: money coming in, money going out, and who gets in trouble when things go bad.

If you’re still presenting technical scores and compliance checklists, you’re missing the mark. Here’s how to bridge the gap and deliver the metrics that drive real business decisions.

WHY FUD FAILS TO SECURE BUDGET FOR CYBERSECURITY

For too long, security leaders have relied on Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) to get budget. The conversation goes something like this: “Give me money, or something bad will happen. How bad? Real bad. When? Pretty soon.”

This approach is no longer effective. Board members and executives aren’t technically averse; they’re dollar-driven. Presenting qualitative scores (like A, B, C grades or simple High/Medium/Low risk ratings) is a failure because:

• They’re Subjective: “Risk” means something different to everyone, depending on their individual risk appetite and even how their day is going. It’s a “useless word” unless tied to a measurable financial impact.
• They Don’t Drive Action: A red ‘High Risk’ label on a vendor’s profile doesn’t tell a leader what to do or how much to spend to fix it.
• They Lack Credibility: The CFO doesn’t present an earnings forecast that’s an estimated guess—so why should a CISO? Relying on a gut feeling or a black-box scoring model just sounds like guessing.

SHIFT TO LOSS EXPOSURE IN DOLLARS: THE LANGUAGE OF THE BOARD

The solution is a courageous shift from qualitative to quantitative risk reporting. This is where you move the conversation from vague scores to loss exposure in dollars and cents.

Third-party risk is about far more than just data breaches; it encompasses supply chain business interruption and other exposures. When you frame risk as a potential financial loss, you immediately get their attention because you’re speaking their language.

TWO CRITICAL METRICS THAT ACTUALLY MATTER

To make this shift, your reports should focus on the following:

1. Concentration Risk & Quantified Impact: 

It’s not enough to say 15% of your ecosystem uses a single critical vendor. You need to say: “If this one vendor goes down, 15% of our supply chain stops, leading to a potential $X million loss in revenue and an estimated Y days of downtime.” This allows the executive to make a strategic decision: diversify the vendor, change the vendor, or bring the service in-house.

2. Loss Distribution: 

You should avoid the temptation of presenting a single, precise number—like $1,319,365.17—which simply causes them to cry shenanigans. Instead, give them a useful degree of precision using a distribution model that shows:

• Minimum Likely Loss (e.g., $600K)
• Most Likely Loss (e.g., $1.3M)
• Maximum Likely Loss (e.g., $10M) This range allows leaders with different risk appetites to understand the full scope of the exposure.

THE POWER OF PROACTIVE AND ACTIONABLE REPORTING

Your current reports aren’t working because they’re full of information that doesn’t matter, overwhelming both your board and your vendors. The most effective report doesn’t get forwarded as a way to pass the buck; it’s the one that drives immediate action.

• Be Proactive (Left of Bang): Instead of focusing on dwell time—the 21-day average the bad guys are in the network before detection—you need to train systems and people to see threats before they happen. Preventative intelligence is the only way to move from a reactive to a proactive security posture.
• Focus on the Few, Not the Many: Don’t send vendors a 500-page report of everything that’s wrong. Share only the information that matters: “Here are the 25 critical vulnerabilities that, based on real-world threat intel, are most likely to be exploited. Fix these, and we’re good.” This targeted approach resonates because it’s focused, meaningful, and actionable.

Ultimately, your board wants to know that you are confident in your ability to manage third-party risk and that you have a strategy that keeps the business running. Stop relying on scores and dashboards that lead to glazed eyes. Start talking about dollars and downtime.

DON'T MISS AN EPISODE!

Don’t miss an episode! Subscribe to the show on YouTube and hit the bell button somewhere around the screen so you don’t miss a single episode. Or catch it wherever you listen to podcasts.

NEXT TIME ON THIRD PARTY

AI is rewriting the rules of third-party risk, and most programs are not ready. We’ll dive into how it’s changing everything from assessments to oversight.

Remember, cybersecurity doesn’t thrive in the shadows. It demands daylight. Until next time.