Insights
I am going to start by be direct.
Cybersecurity is no longer an IT conversation. It is a governance decision.
And like every governance decision, it ultimately sits with the board.
If your organisation operates digitally outside business hours which today describes almost every organisation but your security monitoring does not, then there is a structural gap between how the business runs and how it is protected. That gap is not hypothetical. It is exploitable, measurable, and increasingly scrutinised when incidents occur.
After more than two decades in senior IT and delivery leadership, what has changed most is not the existence of cyber risk, but the expectations placed on boards when that risk materialises. The tolerance for delayed awareness has eroded significantly.
The question boards should now be asking is no longer “Are we secure?”
It is “Are we capable of detecting and responding to an incident at any time?”
Cyber risk does not respect office hours
Threat actors behave rationally. They exploit predictability. One of the most predictable characteristics of many organisations is when leadership, decisionmakers, and response teams are least available.
After hours. Weekends. Public holidays. End of quarter periods.
Most serious incidents I have seen did not begin with obvious disruption during business hours. They started quietly, often late at night, with compromised credentials, anomalous access, or subtle signals that went unnoticed for hours.
By the time teams returned to work, the attacker was no longer testing access. They were already inside.
From a governance perspective, this matters because time to detect determines outcomes. Early detection preserves options. Late detection transfers control to the attacker and consequences to the board. That is not a technology failure. It is an operating model failure.
Boards are judged on readiness, not intent
Regulators, insurers, customers, and investors are no longer satisfied with policy statements or framework alignment alone. They expect demonstrable operational capability.
When an incident occurs, the questions are immediate and predictable. When did it start? When was it detected? What actions were taken? Who was informed? What was affected?
If the honest answer includes “the next business day” or “after the weekend,” that position is becoming increasingly difficult to defend. The absence of continuous monitoring is no longer viewed as an oversight. It is increasingly interpreted as a conscious acceptance of delayed awareness.
Whether boards formally acknowledge that risk or not, they own it.
Tooling does not equal assurance
Many boards are told their organisation has invested heavily in cybersecurity tooling. That may be true. But investment and assurance are not the same thing.
Security tools generate data. Assurance comes from continuous human oversight, the ability to interpret, triage, and act on that data in real time.
Logging suspicious activity at 2am and reviewing it at 9am is not monitoring. It is delayed discovery. From a board’s perspective, that distinction is critical.
A 7×24 Security Operations Centre changes this equation. It ensures abnormal behaviour is assessed when it occurs, not retrospectively. That difference often determines whether an issue is quietly contained or escalates into a reportable, business impacting event.
Boards should be cautious of assurances that focus on technology coverage without addressing operational coverage. One looks good in presentations. The other actually reduces risk.
Time is the board’s most valuable asset in an incident
In cyber incidents, time is not one variable among many. It is the variable.
The window between initial compromise and effective response is where incidents are won or lost. Early detection enables controlled containment and measured communication. Late detection leads to forensic investigations, regulatory involvement, customer notifications, and reputational damage.
From a board perspective, 7×24 SOC coverage is not about preventing every attack. That is unrealistic. It is about ensuring the organisation retains decision making authority when something does happen.
When incidents are detected early, leadership stays in control. When they are detected late, leadership inherits consequences.
Governance cannot rely on heroics
One of the most fragile risk patterns still seen is reliance on individuals. The “key person” who knows the environment. The informal expectation that someone will answer their phone after hours.
Boards should be deeply uncomfortable with this model.
It does not scale. It does not survive staff turnover. And it does not hold under sustained pressure. An incident response model built on heroics is not resilient; it is exposed.
A properly run 7×24 SOC removes that fragility. It institutionalises response capability. Detection, triage, and escalation occur consistently, regardless of time, personnel, or circumstance. From a governance standpoint, this is exactly what good risk management looks like.
This is now a fiduciary discussion
At board level, choosing not to implement continuous security monitoring is a risk decision. It may be implicit, but it exists.
As expectations continue to rise, boards will increasingly be asked to justify that decision—not in abstract terms, but in the context of real incidents, real impacts, and real stakeholders.
The question will not be “Did you try?”
It will be “Was your operating model appropriate for the threat environment you faced?”
For many Australian organisations, answering that question credibly now requires 7×24 SOC coverage.
A final question for the Board
If a material cyber incident began tonight, would your organisation know while it was unfolding or would you be briefed after the fact?
If the answer is “after the fact,” then the discussion about 7×24 SOC coverage is already overdue.
In today’s Australian operating environment, continuous security operations are not excessive and they are not optional. They are a proportionate response to persistent threat, rising expectations, and increasing accountability.
For boards serious about governance, 7×24 SOC coverage is now part of the minimum standard of care.
This Northwick Cybersecurity thought leadership piece explores how 7×24 SOC coverage is now a board‑level necessity because cyber incidents occur outside business hours, and delayed detection directly increases operational, regulatory, and reputational risk.
For Australian organisations, continuous security operations are no longer optional but a minimum standard of care to ensure boards retain control, accountability, and decision‑making authority when incidents inevitably occur.
Northwick Cybersecurity delivers comprehensive protection for businesses by combining advanced threat detection, proactive risk management, and strategic security consulting. Our services cover everything from vulnerability assessments and penetration testing to incident response and compliance support, ensuring enterprises stay resilient against evolving cyber threats. We focus on safeguarding critical infrastructure, securing cloud environments, and implementing robust governance frameworks, all tailored to meet your unique needs.
