Closing the Cybersecurity Visibility Gap: Why Accountability is Your Best Firewall with Elizabeth Wu

Elizabeth Wu discusses the strategic shift in U.S. cybersecurity, executive liability, and closing the visibility gap between IT and leadership for defensible security

The most significant evolution in U.S. cybersecurity is not a technological one, but a cultural and legal shift that is now holding corporate executives personally accountable for digital breaches.

In this interview, we test this idea with Elizabeth Wu, Founder and CEO at Cybersecurity Auditing Technologies LLC, and a cybersecurity strategist at the nexus of technology, law, and corporate governance. Her insights reveal how the conversation has moved from firewalls and frameworks to boardroom liability and Safe Harbor laws.

Wu argues that the central challenge is no longer just stopping threats, but closing the critical "visibility gap" between technical teams and the C-suite, forcing a new era of defensible, real-time security proof.

Interview with Elizabeth Wu

How has the cybersecurity industry grown in the U.S. over the past few years?

The U.S. cybersecurity industry has shifted from being purely technical to deeply strategic. Five years ago, conversations centred on tools and frameworks; today, they focus on accountability, governance, and executive liability. Growth has come not just from increased spending, but from a fundamental mindset shift: cybersecurity is now a board-level issue. The rise of Safe Harbor laws and SEC disclosure requirements has accelerated this transformation, forcing companies to prove “continuous reasonable” security rather than merely claim it.

What are the biggest cybersecurity challenges U.S. companies face today?

The biggest challenge is not the threat itself, but the visibility gap between IT and executive leadership. Most CEOs still don’t have a clear, real-time understanding of their organization’s cybersecurity posture. They rely on reports that summarize activity that is out of date when they receive them, not accountability. That blind spot makes it impossible to connect cyber risk to business risk, and when something goes wrong, it’s the executives who face the legal and reputational consequences.

How do government regulations and data privacy laws affect cybersecurity practices in the U.S.?

Regulation is the catalyst for maturity. State-level laws in Ohio's and Tennessee’s Safe Harbor Acts, as well as the SEC’s new disclosure rules, have forced cybersecurity into the governance domain. What used to be optional, like documenting, auditing, and proving compliance, is now essential for executive defensibility. These laws are redefining “reasonable security” and creating incentives for organizations to adopt the recognized Center for Internet Security (CIS) framework.

Which sectors in the U.S. are most at risk of cyberattacks, and why?

The highest-risk sectors are those where data intersects with disruption: financial services, healthcare, manufacturing, and critical infrastructure. These industries hold sensitive data, run legacy systems, and cannot afford downtime. What makes them vulnerable isn’t always technology; it’s fragmented accountability. When responsibility is unclear across departments, gaps occur, and attackers exploit those gaps faster than companies can close them.

How are new technologies like AI and cloud computing changing cybersecurity strategies?

AI and cloud technologies are double-edged. They increase agility and scalability but also expand the attack surface. The positive side is that AI can now be used to interpret risk, not just detect anomalies. It enables real-time visibility, pattern recognition, and predictive defence. The challenge is governance, ensuring that AI-driven security decisions are explainable, auditable, and aligned with compliance frameworks.

What steps can organizations take to stay compliant with U.S. cybersecurity standards and protect sensitive data?

Compliance starts with clarity. Organizations should adopt a recognized standard like the CIS Controls Framework, and ensure it’s mapped to their operations, not just documented. From there, leadership must assign ownership; every control should have a name, a role, and a timeframe for validation. Finally, evidence must be continuous, not annual. A Safe Harbor defense depends on being able to prove your security posture in real time, not after the fact.