A risky blind spot: industrial and critical infrastructure firms lack OT cybersecurity training, report warns

Secolve, a specialist in operational technology (OT) cybersecurity, published a report saying roughly one in four industrial and critical infrastructure organizations have never run OT-focused cybersecurity training. That single line — simple but stark — has immediate market relevance. A wide slice of listed sectors that rely on industrial control systems now look more exposed to outages, reputational damage and contract loss, while OT security vendors and consultants stand to gain from a renewed spending cycle and tighter procurement rules.

What Secolve is saying and why it matters now

The headline number comes from a Secolve release that frames the finding as evidence of a broad, industry-level vulnerability. In plain terms: workers who run pumps, turbines, power substations or factory floors often haven’t been given drills or security-focused training that explains how OT systems are attacked and how to respond.

For investors, that gap isn’t academic. Operational outages in utilities, energy and heavy industry can stop production for days, trigger penalty clauses in supply contracts, and spark costly remediation work. If a material incident hits a public company in one of these sectors, it can shave earnings, slow capital projects, and tighten credit or insurance terms. Conversely, the vendors that supply OT-focused tools, managed detection services, and training look likely to see stronger demand.

Inside the report: scope, method and how much weight to give it

The published note from Secolve highlights the main finding and offers examples of common training gaps. The release targets industrial and critical infrastructure operators — broadly the utilities, energy, manufacturing and transport firms that run physical control systems — and frames results as the result of a recent survey or assessment exercise.

But the notice is light on methodological detail. It does not lay out a full sample size, exact survey questions, or how participants were selected and verified. That matters: the raw headline means less if the data come from a small, self-selecting group of respondents or from customers and prospects of the vendor publishing the report. Secolve is an OT security company; that doesn’t invalidate the finding, but it does create a possible PR motive to highlight a problem that supports its services.

So take the report as a credible alarm bell, not a definitive census. The underlying reality — ageing OT systems, stretched maintenance teams, and a post-pandemic focus on cost control that often left training budgets tight — is independently visible in industry reporting and past incidents. The new report simply packages that risk into a headline statistic.

Which listed sectors and companies stand to gain or lose

The most exposed groups are obvious: utilities, oil & gas and power generation, large manufacturers (auto, chemicals, steel), water and wastewater operators, rail and ports, and contractors that run industrial facilities. Listed firms in these areas face several investor-facing risks if OT training is indeed inadequate.

First, outages caused by intrusions or operator error can hit near-term revenue and inflate remediation costs. Second, public-sector contracts and tenders increasingly include cyber hygiene clauses; failure to meet standards can cost firms work or lead to renegotiation at lower margins. Third, M&A and contracting risk rises — buyers and counterparties will factor hidden OT liability into valuations or demand warranties and higher holdbacks.

On the other side, pure-play OT security vendors, industrial cybersecurity consultancies, training providers and some systems integrators look set to benefit. Expect momentum in managed detection services for OT, vendor-led training packages, and new product sales tying IT and OT monitoring together. Cyber insurers and brokerages also play a role: they may tighten terms and raise premiums, which in turn changes the risk calculus for asset owners.

Regulation, insurers and knock-on supply-chain risks

Regulators have shown growing impatience with lax industrial cyber practices. A report like this can accelerate moves toward mandatory training or minimum OT standards for critical operators. That could change government procurement, elevate compliance costs, and create a short-term compliance market for consultants and auditors.

Insurance is another lever. Insurers are already re-evaluating cyber cover after a string of large claims. If regulators or large clients start demanding proof of training as a condition of coverage or contract award, firms without documented programs may face higher premiums, narrower cover or even outright exclusions for OT-related incidents.

Finally, supply chains that rely on a handful of industrial suppliers could see amplified disruption. A cyber event at a small but critical supplier can ripple through manufacturing lines or energy delivery, producing outsized hits to larger OEMs or utilities that depend on timely inputs.

What to watch next — a practical investor watchlist

For market participants and reporters, the near-term items that will move prices or reveal real exposure are straightforward. Watch for regulatory announcements setting mandatory OT standards, major vulnerability disclosures that affect widely used industrial controllers, and any high-profile outage that is traced to poor OT hygiene.

Company-level signals to monitor include explicit disclosures of OT incidents in filings or earnings calls, new budget lines for OT security and training, supplier contract language changes, and insurance renewal notes that cite cyber exclusions or premium hikes. Announcements by large vendors about training partnerships, managed-OT offerings, or new certifications also signal a demand spike.

Seen together, Secolve’s headline is less a surprise than a prompt. It crystallizes a long-known weakness in industrial cyber defence: people and process lag behind technology. That gap creates clear winners and losers in public markets — but the real test will be how quickly firms, insurers and regulators convert the alarm into investment and standards.

Photo: Engin Akyurt / Pexels

Sources

• prnewswire.com