Bottom Line Up Front
Industries of consequence — including energy, water, nuclear, telecommunications, manufacturing, and defense — invest heavily in cybersecurity.
Segmentation.
Air gaps.
Privileged access management.
Endpoint detection.
Regulatory compliance frameworks.
These controls are necessary. They materially reduce technical risk.
They are also not what sophisticated adversaries are primarily targeting.
Advanced nation-state groups and organized criminal actors increasingly operate as parasites — attaching to the humans who already possess legitimate access to consequential systems. They do not need to break the air gap if they can persuade, coerce, influence, or socially engineer someone who crosses it.
Public reporting across energy, healthcare, and industrial sectors consistently demonstrates the same operational pattern:
- Gain enterprise foothold through targeted human manipulation
- Acquire legitimate credentials
- Move laterally through trusted workflows
- Operate inside sanctioned administrative channels
- Position disruptive capability within protected environments
The air gap is not “broken.”
It is traversed by compromising legitimate trusted operators.
This is the strategic gap.
Traditional cybersecurity protects systems.
It does not systematically prepare leadership and privileged operators to think like the adversary targeting them.
The Adversary Model: How Infrastructure Is Actually Compromised
1. Sandworm: Enterprise Compromise Before Operational Impact
The Russian GRU unit known as Sandworm (Unit 74455) is a prime example of the threat.
ESET’s 2024 reporting on Sandworm’s intrusion into a Polish energy company documents:
- Spear-phishing
- Credential compromise
- Enterprise IT foothold
- Deployment of the destructive DynoWiper payload
Operational impact followed enterprise access.
Earlier ESET analysis of Industroyer2 (2022) showed targeted attempts to manipulate Ukrainian substations after enterprise compromise had already occurred.
Independent longitudinal analysis from Picus Security highlights more than a decade of Sandworm activity characterized by:
- Social engineering
- Abuse of legitimate administrative tooling
- Living-off-the-land techniques
- Long-term pre-positioning
The pattern is consistent: human access precedes operational consequence.
Sources:
ESET Research (2022–2024)
Picus Security, Inside Sandworm: A Decade of Cyber Sabotage
2. Strategic Pre-Positioning: Access as Geopolitical Leverage
Joint U.S. government advisories continue to assess that state actors seek persistent access inside U.S. critical infrastructure environments.
CISA Advisory AA25-343A notes advanced actors:
- Harvest and reuse valid credentials
- Maintain persistence via legitimate accounts
- Blend into normal administrative activity
- Operate below traditional detection thresholds
This is strategic positioning — not opportunistic intrusion.
The objective is optionality: the ability to disrupt when politically advantageous.
Source: CISA Cybersecurity Advisory AA25-343A
3. Criminal Actors Exploit the Same Human Vector
The FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) 2024 Annual Report documents:
- $12.5+ billion in reported losses
- Business Email Compromise among the highest financial impact categories
- Continued ransomware targeting of critical infrastructure sectors
These operations rely overwhelmingly on:
- Phishing
- Social engineering
- Credential compromise
- Exploitation of authority and urgency
Infrastructure organizations are disproportionately targeted because downtime tolerance is low and restoration pressure is high.
Different motive. Same method.
Source: FBI IC3 2024 Annual Report
Necessary — but Not Sufficient
Industrial cybersecurity providers emphasize:
- Network segmentation
- Asset visibility
- Secure remote access
- Monitoring and detection
- Regulatory compliance
These controls are essential. They reduce technical exposure. They do not address how adversaries:
- Profile engineers and operators
- Identify coercible or targetable roles
- Exploit authority hierarchies
- Manipulate crisis response behavior
- Operationalize trusted relationships
Traditional ICS Security vs. Countervail
| Domain | Traditional ICS Cybersecurity | Countervail |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Systems & Infrastructure | Human Access & Adversary Behavior |
| Objective | Prevent & Detect Technical Intrusion | Reduce Cognitive Exploitation Risk |
| Lens | Compliance & Controls | Threat Actor Intent & Targeting Logic |
| Primary Question | “Are systems secure?” | “How would a foreign adversary use our people?” |
| Outcome | Technical Hardening | Decision Integrity & Exposure Reduction |
The Adversary Perspective Lab
Countervail’s primary offering — the Adversary Perspective Lab — is a structured engagement designed for boards, executives, and privileged operators within critical infrastructure environments.
The Lab develops adversarial reasoning capability across leadership and high-access roles.
Participants examine:
- How targeted adversary groups identify leverage
- How authority structures are exploited
- How trust relationships are operationalized
- How enterprise access transitions toward operational consequence
Grounded in observed tradecraft and sector-specific targeting patterns, the Lab builds transferable cognitive discipline — enabling leaders and operators to anticipate manipulation across formats, channels, and evolving tactics.
This is not awareness training.
It is applied adversarial analysis designed to strengthen decision integrity and reduce human-layer exposure.
Conclusion
Critical infrastructure is targeted because it is consequential.
Nation-states seek geopolitical leverage.
Criminal groups seek economic return.
Both prioritize trusted human access.
Technical ICS controls cannot independently neutralize cognitive exploitation, coercion, or insider manipulation.
If adversaries view your engineers, administrators, contractors, and executives as the most efficient pathway to disruption, your strategy must explicitly address that exposure.
Countervail was built to close that gap.
Request a confidential consultation to evaluate your organization’s human attack surface and determine whether the Adversary Perspective Lab aligns with your risk profile.
Countervail 