Financial services cybersecurity explained: Protecting the world’s most targeted industry

Key insights

  • Financial services experienced a record 65% ransomware hit rate in 2024, with 97% of major U.S. banks also affected by third-party breaches
  • Average data breach costs in the sector reached $5.56 to $6.08 million in 2025, making security investment a business survival issue
  • Attack speed has increased 100x over four years, with AI-enabled campaigns now compressing to approximately 25 minutes from initial access to data exfiltration
  • Regulatory convergence is driving institutions toward NIST CSF 2.0, with DORA now enforced in the EU and FFIEC CAT sunsetting in August 2025
  • Organizations using extensive AI in security operations saved $1.9 million per breach compared to those without, though 97% of AI-related incidents stem from inadequate access controls

Financial services institutions hold the keys to the global economy — and cybercriminals know it. With 65% of financial firms hit by ransomware in 2024, the highest rate ever recorded according to Sophos, and breach costs averaging $6.08 million per incident, security teams face unprecedented pressure to defend against increasingly sophisticated attacks. This guide provides security professionals with the current threat landscape, regulatory requirements, and detection strategies needed to protect the world’s most targeted industry.

What is financial services cybersecurity?

Financial services cybersecurity is the practice of protecting banks, credit unions, insurance companies, investment firms, and fintech organizations from cyber threats through specialized security controls, regulatory compliance measures, and continuous threat detection across on-premises and cloud environments that handle sensitive financial data and enable critical transaction processing.

This discipline encompasses far more than traditional IT security. Financial institutions operate under unique constraints that shape every security decision: real-time transaction requirements that limit acceptable friction, interconnected systems spanning dozens of third-party providers, and a regulatory landscape that varies across jurisdictions. The Financial Services Sector, as designated by CISA, represents critical infrastructure essential to national economic stability.

The scope extends across diverse institution types. Commercial banks process trillions in daily transactions. Insurance companies hold vast repositories of personal health and financial data. Investment firms manage portfolios where unauthorized access could enable market manipulation. Fintech startups, often moving faster than their security programs mature, introduce new attack surfaces through innovative payment systems and digital banking platforms.

What makes financial services different

The financial sector’s risk profile stems from four converging factors that amplify every security challenge.

High-value data concentration creates irresistible targets. A single financial institution holds personally identifiable information (PII), account credentials, transaction histories, and payment card data — all commanding premium prices on underground markets. According to the FS-ISAC Navigating Cyber 2025 report, financial services remains the second-most attacked industry globally, trailing only healthcare.

Interconnected systems and third-party dependencies expand attack surfaces beyond institutional boundaries. Core banking platforms integrate with payment processors, credit bureaus, trading systems, and regulatory reporting tools. Each connection creates potential exposure. This architectural reality means that protecting your own systems is necessary but insufficient.

Real-time processing requirements constrain security controls. When customers expect instant transfers and traders require millisecond execution, security teams cannot implement controls that add noticeable latency. This tension between security and performance demands sophisticated approaches to threat detection that identify malicious activity without disrupting legitimate operations.

Regulatory complexity compounds operational challenges. A multinational bank might simultaneously comply with GLBA safeguards, NYDFS requirements, DORA provisions, PCI DSS standards, and SEC cybersecurity rules — each with distinct reporting timelines, technical requirements, and penalty structures.

Why cybersecurity matters for financial services

The business case for financial services cybersecurity extends beyond preventing breaches. Security failures cascade through organizations, damaging finances, reputation, regulatory standing, and competitive position simultaneously.

Financial impact reaches existential levels. The IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 found that financial services data breach costs averaged $5.56 to $6.08 million — among the highest across all industries. These figures capture direct costs including forensic investigation, customer notification, legal fees, and regulatory penalties. They do not fully capture the longer-term revenue impact from customer attrition.

Customer trust erodes rapidly after incidents. Financial relationships depend on confidence that institutions protect assets and data. Research from American Banker indicates that 88% of banking executives believe a successful cyberattack would trigger client withdrawals and investor panic. Once trust breaks, rebuilding it takes years.

Regulatory penalties create material liability. NYDFS can assess penalties up to $250,000 per day for ongoing non-compliance. In October 2025, eight auto insurance companies received aggregate penalties of $19 million for cybersecurity regulation violations. DORA penalties can reach 1% of average daily global turnover for non-compliant EU financial entities.

Systemic risk threatens broader stability. The 2024 attack on C-Edge Technologies in India forced nearly 300 banks to shut down temporarily, demonstrating how concentration risk in shared service providers can cascade across the financial system. Regulators increasingly view cybersecurity as a systemic risk issue, not merely an institutional concern.

Competitive advantage accrues to security leaders. Institutions with mature security programs win regulated business that competitors cannot pursue. Strong security postures reduce insurance costs, accelerate partner integrations, and provide defensive moats that take years to replicate.

The threat landscape in 2026

Financial institutions face a threat environment characterized by increasing attack frequency, accelerating speed, and expanding attack surfaces. Understanding current threat patterns enables defensive prioritization.

According to Palo Alto Networks Unit 42, 36% of financial services incidents between May 2024 and May 2025 began with social engineering attacks. This finding underscores the continued primacy of the human element in initial access, despite billions invested in technical controls. The same research reveals that time from compromise to data exfiltration has increased 100x faster than four years ago, with AI-enabled agentic attacks compressing entire ransomware campaigns to approximately 25 minutes.

Top threat categories

  1. Phishing and social engineering: The primary initial access vector, with 45% of employees in large financial institutions likely to click malicious links according to KnowBe4. AI-generated phishing now comprises 82% of attacks, representing a 1,200% increase since 2021.
  2. Ransomware and extortion: The 65% hit rate in 2024 represents the highest rate ever recorded for financial services. Double extortion — encrypting data while threatening publication — has become standard operating procedure for major groups.
  3. DDoS and availability attacks: Financial services remains the most targeted industry for distributed denial-of-service attacks, with geopolitically motivated groups like Noname057(16) targeting Western financial infrastructure.
  4. Supply chain and third-party attacks: With 97% of major U.S. banks experiencing third-party breaches in 2024, vendor security has become an institutional vulnerability.
  5. Insider threats: Privileged access combined with financial sector data value creates significant insider risk, whether from malicious actors or compromised credentials.
  6. API vulnerabilities: Digital banking expansion exposes APIs that, when misconfigured, provide attackers direct access to transaction systems and customer data.

MITRE ATT&CK mapping for financial services

Security teams benefit from mapping financial sector threats to the MITRE ATT&CK framework for detection engineering and threat hunting. Key techniques include:

Technique ID Technique Name Tactic Financial Services Relevance
T1657 Financial Theft Impact Direct monetary theft through unauthorized transactions
T1566 Phishing Initial Access Primary entry vector for 36% of incidents
T1566.001 Spearphishing Attachment Initial Access Targeted attacks against treasury and finance personnel
T1078 Valid Accounts Initial Access, Persistence Credential theft enables persistent access
T1486 Data Encrypted for Impact Impact Ransomware encryption disrupting operations

Table: MITRE ATT&CK techniques most relevant to financial services threat detection. Technique IDs link to official MITRE documentation.

Threat actors targeting financial services

Specific threat actors demonstrate sustained focus on financial sector targets:

Akira ransomware group attacked 34 financial organizations between April 2024 and April 2025. The group exploits compromised credentials, VPN vulnerabilities, and RDP to gain initial access before deploying double extortion tactics.

Lazarus Group, the North Korean state-sponsored advanced persistent threat actor, continues targeting both cryptocurrency exchanges and traditional banking infrastructure. The group has been attributed to the $1.4 billion Bybit breach in February 2025, demonstrating operational scale that challenges even well-resourced institutions.

Noname057(16), a pro-Russian hacktivist collective, launched DDoS attacks against La Banque Postale in France during December 2025, demonstrating how geopolitical tensions translate directly to financial sector targeting.

Financial services cybersecurity in practice

Real-world incidents reveal patterns that abstract threat discussions obscure. These case studies demonstrate how attacks unfold and what organizations can learn from others’ experiences.

Case study: LoanDepot ransomware attack (January 2024)

The LoanDepot incident affected 17 million customers, making it among the largest mortgage sector breaches recorded. Attackers exfiltrated Social Security numbers, bank account details, and dates of birth before deploying encryption.

Key lesson: Network segmentation could have limited lateral movement after initial compromise. Encryption at rest would have reduced the value of exfiltrated data to attackers.

Case study: Evolve Bank and Trust breach (2024)

The Evolve breach compromised 7.6 million people through a single entry point: an employee clicking a malicious link in a phishing email.

Key lesson: Technical controls cannot fully compensate for human vulnerability. Continuous security awareness training, combined with email security controls that reduce malicious message delivery, remains essential.

Case study: Bank of America via Infosys McCamish (2023-2024)

The LockBit ransomware group compromised Infosys McCamish, a third-party service provider, exposing PII of approximately 57,000 Bank of America customers. Notably, affected customers were not notified until February 2024 — three months after the initial breach.

Key lesson: Third-party risk management must include contractual incident notification requirements and continuous monitoring of vendor security posture. Organizations cannot outsource accountability for customer data protection.

Case study: India banking system disruption (2024)

A ransomware attack on C-Edge Technologies, a shared service provider, forced nearly 300 Indian banks to temporarily shut down operations. The incident demonstrated how concentration in shared infrastructure creates systemic vulnerability.

Key lesson: Concentration risk assessments must evaluate not just direct vendors but shared infrastructure dependencies. Business continuity planning should account for scenarios where critical shared services become unavailable.

Recent incidents (2025-2026)

Incident Date Impact Entry Point Primary Lesson
SitusAMC breach November 2025 JPMorgan, Citi, Morgan Stanley data exposed Third-party compromise Fourth-party risk extends beyond direct vendors
Marquis Software August 2025 780,000+ individuals; 80+ banks SonicWall firewall zero-day Edge device vulnerabilities require priority patching
FBI credential seizure December 2025 $262 million in losses Search engine malvertising Customer education on URL verification matters

Table: Recent financial services cybersecurity incidents with documented lessons learned.

These incidents underscore a consistent pattern: third-party risk, employee vulnerability, and delayed detection enable successful attacks. Organizations addressing these three vectors through effective incident response dramatically reduce breach probability.

Detecting and preventing threats

Effective financial services security combines prevention controls with detection capabilities that assume preventive measures will eventually fail — the “assume compromise” philosophy that guides mature security programs.

Zero Trust implementation for financial services

Zero Trust architecture has moved from conceptual framework to implementation priority across financial services. Major institutions including JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs have adopted Zero Trust principles, and PCI DSS 4.0 was explicitly designed with a Zero Trust mindset.

Implementation typically follows a phased approach:

  1. Start with identity: Given that social engineering and credential theft drive most initial access, identity verification represents the highest-impact starting point. Implement strong authentication for all access, regardless of network location.
  2. Address legacy system constraints: Financial services environments often include mainframe and legacy systems that cannot support modern authentication protocols. Compensating controls and network segmentation isolate these systems while modernization proceeds.
  3. Extend to applications and data: Once identity foundations are solid, apply Zero Trust principles to application access and data classification. Users should access only the applications and data required for their role.
  4. Monitor continuously: Zero Trust is not a destination but an operational model requiring continuous verification. Implement behavioral analytics to detect anomalies even from authenticated users.

Essential security controls

Security teams should prioritize these foundational controls:

  1. Multi-factor authentication (MFA) everywhere: NYDFS requires MFA as of November 2025. Beyond compliance, MFA blocks brute-force attacks and significantly reduces credential stuffing effectiveness.
  2. AES-256 encryption: Encrypt data at rest and in transit using industry-standard encryption. This control reduces the value of exfiltrated data and is required by PCI DSS.
  3. Network segmentation: Limit lateral movement by segmenting networks according to business function and data sensitivity. The LoanDepot case demonstrates how segmentation limits blast radius.
  4. Network detection and response (NDR): Deploy behavioral analytics that detect malicious activity based on behavior patterns rather than signatures alone. Given the 25-minute attack timelines now possible, signature-based detection alone cannot keep pace.
  5. Identity protection: Monitor identity systems for compromise indicators. Attackers increasingly target identity infrastructure because valid credentials bypass many controls.
  6. Employee security training: Regular, role-based training addresses the 45% click rate on malicious links. Training should be continuous, not annual, and adapted to current threat patterns.
  7. Patch management: Prioritize patching for edge devices (firewalls, VPNs) and internet-facing systems. The Marquis breach through a SonicWall zero-day demonstrates the criticality of rapid patching.
  8. 24/7 security monitoring: Financial services operations continue around the clock; security monitoring must match. Implement continuous threat detection with automated alerting and response capabilities.

Third-party risk management

The 97% third-party breach statistic demands that financial institutions treat vendor security as a first-party concern. The NYDFS October 2025 guidance on third-party oversight establishes regulatory expectations that most institutions have not yet fully met.

Vendor risk assessment framework

Effective third-party risk management (TPRM) follows a structured lifecycle:

  1. Pre-contract due diligence: Before engaging vendors, assess their security posture through questionnaires, certifications review, and — for critical vendors — independent security assessments. Evaluate their incident history and insurance coverage.
  2. Contract security requirements: Include specific security obligations in contracts: encryption standards, access controls, audit rights, and breach notification timelines. The Bank of America/Infosys McCamish case demonstrates the consequences of inadequate notification requirements.
  3. Ongoing monitoring: Point-in-time assessments provide false confidence. Implement continuous monitoring through security rating services and regular reassessments. Monitor vendor financial health as an indicator of security investment capacity.
  4. Incident notification requirements: Specify notification timelines in contracts. DORA requires 4-hour notification for major incidents; contracts should align with regulatory requirements.
  5. Concentration risk assessment: Evaluate dependencies on shared service providers. The India C-Edge incident demonstrates systemic risk from concentration. Develop contingency plans for critical vendor failures.
  6. Fourth-party visibility: As the SitusAMC breach demonstrates, third-party vendors have their own vendors. Require transparency into critical fourth-party relationships and their security practices.

Regulatory compliance frameworks

Financial services cybersecurity operates within an increasingly complex regulatory environment. Understanding key frameworks enables compliance-driven security investment that satisfies multiple requirements simultaneously.

U.S. regulations

GLBA (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) applies to all U.S. financial institutions. The Safeguards Rule requires implementation of information security programs with administrative, technical, and physical safeguards. Penalties reach $100,000 per violation, with individual liability up to $10,000.

NYDFS 23 NYCRR 500 applies to DFS-regulated entities and has become a de facto national standard due to its specificity. Key requirements include CISO appointment, risk assessment, encryption, MFA (mandatory since November 2025), and incident reporting within 72 hours. Penalties can reach $250,000 per day for ongoing violations.

PCI DSS 4.0 governs payment card data protection globally. The March 2024 transition deadline has passed, with additional requirements becoming mandatory in March 2025. The framework explicitly incorporates Zero Trust principles and provides a customized approach option for mature organizations.

FFIEC CAT is sunsetting August 31, 2025. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council recommends transitioning to NIST CSF 2.0 or the CRI Profile, which maps to MITRE ATT&CK v16.1 with over 2,100 technique mappings.

EU regulations

DORA (Digital Operational Resilience Act) became enforceable January 17, 2025 and applies to EU financial entities and their ICT third-party providers. Requirements include ICT risk management frameworks, 4-hour major incident reporting, annual resilience testing, and third-party provider oversight. Penalties can reach 1% of average daily global turnover.

NIS2 Directive established transposition deadlines of October 2024 for member states. Financial entities subject to DORA follow DORA as lex specialis, but NIS2 applies where DORA does not cover. Penalties reach EUR 10 million or 2% of global turnover.

Regulatory comparison matrix

Regulation Scope Key Requirements Penalties Key Deadline
GLBA U.S. financial institutions Security program, Safeguards Rule Up to $100,000/violation Ongoing
NYDFS 500 NY-regulated entities CISO, MFA, encryption, 72-hour reporting Up to $250,000/day MFA: Nov 2025
DORA EU financial entities ICT risk management, 4-hour reporting Up to 1% daily turnover Jan 17, 2025
NIS2 EU essential entities Cybersecurity measures, incident reporting Up to EUR 10M or 2% turnover Oct 2024
PCI DSS 4.0 Payment card handlers Zero Trust, MFA, encryption Fines plus loss of card processing Mar 2025

Table: Key financial services cybersecurity regulations compared. Organizations should assess applicability based on jurisdiction, entity type, and activities.

Framework alignment

The proliferation of regulations has driven framework consolidation. NIST CSF 2.0 provides the foundation that most U.S. financial institutions now build upon, with its six functions — Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover — mapping to regulatory requirements across jurisdictions.

The CRI Profile, developed by over 300 experts from 150+ institutions, provides financial sector-specific controls mapped to NIST CSF. Its integration with MITRE ATT&CK v16.1 enables direct translation from compliance requirements to detection engineering.

Modern approaches to financial services cybersecurity

Emerging technologies and methodologies are transforming how financial institutions defend against cyber threats, with AI security at the forefront of this evolution.

AI benefits and governance requirements

AI adoption in financial services security has reached critical mass. According to American Banker research, 91% of U.S. banks now deploy AI for fraud detection, with organizations reporting 25% improvement in detection rates and up to 80% reduction in false positives.

The IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 found that organizations using extensive AI in security saved $1.9 million per breach compared to those without. Return on investment reaches 3.5x within 18 months, with operational cost reductions of 10% or more for one-third of institutions.

AI capabilities now essential for financial services security include:

  • Real-time anomaly detection across transaction and behavioral patterns
  • Predictive risk scoring that identifies compromised accounts before fraud occurs
  • Automated response that contains threats within the 25-minute windows now typical for sophisticated attacks
  • Enhanced AML/KYC processes that detect synthetic identity fraud

However, AI governance remains dangerously immature. The World Economic Forum Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026 reports that 94% of organizations identify AI as the most significant driver of cybersecurity change, yet IBM found that 97% of organizations experiencing AI-related security incidents lacked proper access controls. Only 11% of banks secure their AI systems robustly.

The governance imperative is clear: AI security benefits require foundational controls including access management, model monitoring, and data protection before deployment. Organizations rushing AI adoption without governance frameworks create new attack surfaces faster than they close existing ones.

How Vectra AI approaches financial services cybersecurity

Vectra AI addresses financial services cybersecurity through Attack Signal Intelligence — detecting attacker behaviors across cloud, identity, and network attack surfaces rather than chasing individual alerts. This methodology aligns with the industry’s need for real-time detection given the 25-minute attack timelines now possible with AI-enabled threats, while reducing the 80% false positive burden that overwhelms traditional security tools.

For financial services organizations, this approach means security teams can identify threats that bypass preventive controls, correlate suspicious activities across attack surfaces, and prioritize response based on actual risk rather than alert volume. The goal is transforming overwhelmed SOCs into proactive threat hunters capable of finding attacks that others miss.

Conclusion

Financial services cybersecurity in 2026 demands a fundamental shift from reactive defense to proactive threat detection. The 65% ransomware hit rate, 25-minute attack timelines, and 97% third-party breach exposure leave no margin for complacency. Organizations that thrive will combine regulatory compliance with detection capabilities that assume compromise and find attackers already inside the network.

The path forward requires three priorities: strengthening third-party risk management given the clear evidence that vendor security is institutional security, implementing AI-powered detection while building the governance frameworks that 97% of organizations currently lack, and consolidating around NIST CSF 2.0 as the foundation for multi-regulatory compliance.

Security teams ready to transform their approach can explore how Vectra AI’s financial services solutions provide the Attack Signal Intelligence needed to detect threats that bypass prevention and find attackers before they achieve their objectives.

More cybersecurity fundamentals

FAQs

What is cybersecurity in financial services?

Why is cybersecurity important for financial services?

What are the main cyber threats to financial institutions?

How do banks protect against cyber attacks?

What regulations govern financial services cybersecurity?

What is the cost of a data breach in financial services?

How does AI help with financial services cybersecurity?