14 Security Experts on the Top Strategic Pivots from Q1 2026

The first quarter of 2026 has been a reality check for traditional security models. Based on the 14 Sage and vendor perspectives recently published to the Cybersecurity Resource Hub, several themes are becoming clear: the “perimeter” is now effectively the browser session, and “users” are increasingly AI agents rather than people.

The three strategic shifts defining how practitioners and builders are rethinking defense this year: moving security to the interior, adapting security practices for an AI-driven environment, and cutting the compliance theater.

1. Moving Security to the Interior

We've spent years hardening the front door, but the consensus is that the edge is no longer the primary battleground. Steve Salinas (Sr. Director at Conceal) argues that runtime evaluation of browser activity has become the new enforcement frontier. Since attackers now use valid credentials to log in rather than exploits to break in, controls need to follow the work into the session itself.

Rajan Kapoor (VP of Security at Material Security) takes this a step further, stating that a compromised session gives attackers a historical roadmap of the entire organization. Years of sensitive data sit in mailboxes protected by little more than a single sign-on event. Kapoor's take is that resilience requires a model of continuous interior protection — adding verification layers to sensitive data and actions even after a user is authenticated.

This is complicated by the agentic enterprise. Alex Bovee (CEO at ConductorOne) warns that traditional identity tools were built for humans and fail completely when AI agents enter the picture. These agents don't enter through HR and don't use credential vaults; they hit APIs directly. Bovee says that identity must shift from managing people's access to governing machine execution, verifying intent and scope in real-time.

This automation forces defenders to move faster. Ian Schneller (Cybersecurity Advisor Sage) highlights that the window between vulnerability disclosure and active exploitation has collapsed to hours. For Schneller, an assume breach philosophy is a practical requirement to stop an initial foothold from turning into lateral movement. Separately, Matthew Sweeney (CTO at Gomboc AI) argues that tiered controls can block high-impact failures automatically without slowing engineering teams.

2. Adapting Security Practices for an AI-Driven Environment

The conversation around AI is moving from "what if" to "how to run it." Greg Martin (Co-Founder at Ghost Security, Inc.) notes that machine-generated code shifts the security opportunity upstream, making secure-by-design practical for the first time rather than an aspirational slogan.

But public-facing AI has its own set of problems. Kevin Magee (CTO Sage) focuses on what breaks when generative AI faces customers directly, particularly the absence of clear ownership over non-deterministic behavior in production. Magee says that these systems can't be treated as one-off projects. Instead, they need to be managed as continuous operational cycles where real-world usage feeds back into the build to catch hallucinations or data leaks early.

This autonomy makes identity fundamentals more important, not less. Matthew Marji (Security & Compliance Sage) explains that the fix isn't a new tool, but rather reinforcing explicit ownership and scoped roles before AI systems inherit weak permissions. When IAM fundamentals are weak, those gaps expand quickly as systems take on more responsibility.

The human side of AI also needs a new playbook. Nicole Jiang (CEO at Fable Security) argues that behavioral interventions — precise, timely, and continuously tested — are more effective than periodic training at actually changing how employees act, pointing out that human error is still tied to 60% of breaches.

3. Cutting the Compliance Theater

There is a growing push to get away from check-the-box security and focus on actual outcomes. Scott McCrady (CEO at SolCyber) argues that tool sprawl creates more operational confusion than protection, and that most teams would be better served by fewer, better-integrated platforms — asking not just whether a tool exists, but whether it closes a defined gap and reduces effort.

We're seeing this in vulnerability management, too. Erik Hart (CISO Sage) notes that composite scoring, combining asset criticality with active threat telemetry, is what separates real risk reduction from scanner noise, allowing teams to automate routine fixes and focus human attention where it actually moves the needle.

To prove any of this works, you have to test against reality. Steven Gerry (VP of Sales at Tidal Cyber) advocates for measuring defense by whether it can actually disrupt an attacker's step-by-step procedures, not just whether a tool is deployed. This moves the metric from "do we have the tool?" to "can we stop the attack?"

This shift toward maturity is even helping the bottom line. Sawan Joshi (CISO Sage) observes that having a named, qualified DPO has become a deal friction-reducer, regardless of whether the law requires one.

The digital side of risk is also being modernized. Jeffrey Wheatman (SVP, Cyber Risk Strategist at Black Kite) shows how AI can shift third-party risk from reactive questionnaires to continuous, data-driven analysis of vendor posture across the full relationship lifecycle.

Bottom Line

The common thread across these 14 Sage and vendor perspectives is that the industry is moving away from reactive, tool-heavy models. Resilience in 2026 is about continuous verification, machine-governed execution, and outcome-driven strategy.

Explore all perspectives in the Cybersecurity Resource Hub.