Only 5% of organizations say they have full trust in their cybersecurity vendors, highlighting a widening confidence gap that is reshaping how companies manage cyber risk, according to a new global study.
The findings come from the Cybersecurity Trust Reality 2026 report by Sophos, a security solutions provider. The vendor-agnostic study surveyed 5,000 organizations across 17 countries and examined how trust influences cybersecurity risk, operations, and board-level decision-making.
The report points to trust as one of the most overlooked but critical factors in cybersecurity strategy. It also shows that, despite rising cyber threats, regulatory pressure, and wider use of artificial intelligence (AI) in security systems, most organizations still struggle to confidently assess whether their cybersecurity partners are reliable.
“Trust is not an abstract concept in cybersecurity, it is a measurable risk factor,” said Ross McKerchar, CISO at Sophos. “When organizations cannot independently verify a vendor’s security maturity, transparency, and incident handling practices, that uncertainty flows directly into boardrooms and security strategies.”
According to the study, 95% of respondents said they do not have full trust in their cybersecurity vendors. Also, 79% said they struggle to assess the trustworthiness of new cybersecurity providers, and 62% reported difficulty evaluating even their existing vendors. More than half, or 51%, also said their lack of trust increases anxiety about the likelihood of a major cyber incident.
The report highlights how these trust gaps are not just perception issues but operational challenges. When organizations are uncertain about vendors, decision-making slows down, vendor switching becomes more common, and security teams face added friction in managing tools and services. Over time, this can weaken overall cyber resilience.
CISOs, or chief information security officers, are particularly affected. The study found that security leaders increasingly rely on verifiable proof of vendor capability rather than marketing claims. These include independent security assessments, industry certifications, and evidence of operational maturity.
Different stakeholders prioritize different signals. Security teams tend to focus on transparency during incidents and consistent technical performance. Board members and senior executives, on the other hand, place greater weight on independent validation, certifications, and analyst evaluations.
Across both groups, the message is consistent: organizations want evidence-based assurance, not general promises.
The report also notes that artificial intelligence is adding a new layer to the trust equation. As AI becomes more integrated into cybersecurity tools and workflows, organizations are not only asking whether systems are effective, but also whether AI is being used responsibly, transparently, and with clear governance controls.
“CISOs are being asked to prove trust, not assume it,” McKerchar said. “Cybersecurity providers must do the same. Respondents cited a lack of accessible, sufficiently detailed information as the primary barrier to making confident trust assessments. Trust must be earned continuously through transparency, accountability, and independent validation.”
The findings suggest that cybersecurity is no longer judged only by technical performance. Instead, vendor credibility, transparency, and independently verifiable security practices are becoming central to how organizations evaluate risk in an increasingly complex threat environment.