The threat of an OT cyber-attack isn’t just an operational risk. It’s also a financial one.
Companies across critical infrastructure and process industries spend billions each year on OT cybersecurity. But breaches keep happening, and when they do, the costs are not confined to IT. They include production losses, fines, and reputational damage. In some high-profile cases, this has even required reporting to financial regulators.
And those breaches are growing in both frequency and impact. A 2023 industry survey found that 65 percent of industrial organizations experienced an OT cybersecurity incident in the past 24 months, with an average cost of $2.8 million per incident, driven largely by downtime and lost production.[i] A separate analysis showed that ransomware attacks on industrial firms more than doubled between 2021 and 2023, with the energy and metals sectors especially hard hit.[ii]
The common thread: most attacks begin through traditional IT channels – email, remote access, compromised credentials. From there, they move into OT environments that were never designed for cyber defense. Once inside, attackers can lock down HMIs, encrypt engineering servers, or hijack scheduling systems, potentially bringing operations to a halt.
That’s because most OT systems, especially in process industries, still rely on legacy hardware, default credentials, and poorly segmented environments with few barriers between IT and OT. Automation and remote connectivity have expanded efficiency, but they’ve also widened the attack surface, leaving core industrial assets exposed.
To avoid confusion, let’s start by clarifying the term process level. This refers to the lowest layer of industrial control systems, where sensors and actuators interact directly with equipment to monitor and control variables like pressure, flow, temperature, and electrical current. It’s the domain where operational reality is measured and controlled, and where even small changes can indicate major disruptions.
It is at this level that cybersecurity is often ignored but is also critical.
Unlike cyber traditional tools that monitor networks and software, process-level monitoring validates what’s actually happening in the physical environment. If malicious commands or ransomware distort the system, these physical signals will diverge from expected values, providing a fast, independent alert.
And finance should take notice. Because earlier detection means fewer losses from disruption and ransom payment. The quicker an evolving OT cyber incident can be identified, the lower the complexity and cost of recovery.
In this article, we’ll explore why OT cybersecurity needs to be reframed as a financial risk – and how process-level monitoring can help organizations quantify, manage, and ultimately reduce their exposure.
Most ransomware attacks begin in IT environments. In critical infrastructure and process industries, the concern isn’t just locked files; it’s that an IT breach could spread into operational systems like ICS or SCADA, resulting in halted production, safety incidents, or regulatory violations.
These incidents are becoming more frequent. A 2024 survey of 500 U.S. CISOs by Absolute Security found that 72% of organizations experienced a ransomware attack in the past year, with average recovery costs reaching $4.5 million per incident. [iii]
In sectors like energy and utilities where OT interruptions directly affect revenue and public safety, the risk is especially acute. During the 2021 Colonial Pipeline incident, attackers never directly accessed OT systems, but the organization proactively shut down operations to prevent potential escalation. The result: major fuel distribution disruptions across the U.S. East Coast and national attention from regulators and the media.
The financial impact of these attacks goes well beyond ransom payments. It includes downtime, emergency remediation, regulatory scrutiny, and reputational damage. Even when the process level remains untouched, the possibility of lateral spread into OT systems can be enough to justify costly ransom payments.
The financial impact of OT cyber incidents often extends far beyond immediate recovery costs, impacting earnings reports and even executive liability.
In August 2024, Halliburton (one of the world’s largest oilfield services firms) detected unauthorized access across its IT environment and proactively took certain systems offline. The company later disclosed a $35 million pre-tax charge, attributed to delayed revenue from disrupted billing and invoicing. Halliburton also reported a temporary slowdown in collections and paused its share buyback program. The incident triggered an 8-K filing with the SEC, signaling not only material financial impact, but the regulatory expectations now placed on boards and executives for cyber disclosure.
When cyber incidents reach a level of material impact, whether through operational disruption, system tampering, or data compromise, the costs multiply: emergency IT/OT response, forensic investigations, reputational damage, regulatory disclosures, and potential fines.
These expenses, both financial and reputational, bring cyber risk directly onto the P&L, trigger mandatory SEC reporting, and can even expose executives to personal liability if oversight or disclosure is deemed inadequate.
Process- Level monitoring allows organizations to detect the physical effects of intrusion – such as anomalies in flow, current, or pressure -before a cyberattack disrupts operational integrity. By providing a real-time, independent view of what’s happening on the plant floor, it serves as an early-warning mechanism that can contain incidents before they escalate into costly downtime, safety risks, or regulatory exposure. This kind of visibility strengthens both operational continuity and financial resilience, ensuring that leadership is better positioned to respond decisively under pressure.
The financial impact of an OT cyberattack is often determined by how far the attacker gets: specifically, whether they reach the process level.
The 2019 LockerGoga attack on Norsk Hydro is a textbook example. What began as ransomware targeting Windows systems quickly escalated, disabling HMIs, corrupting engineering stations, and severing operator visibility. With no access to scheduling, monitoring, or coordination tools, production in several plants (including critical aluminum extrusion and rolled products facilities) slowed to a crawl. Losses exceeded $70 million.
What’s striking is that the attackers didn’t need to manipulate PLC logic or reprogram actuators. The financial damage came from loss of control and visibility – delays, safety precautions, and manual overrides -all triggered by a cascading failure across Levels 1–3 of the ICS stack.
Exhibit 1: Norsk Hydro OT Attack Progression
That’s why stopping the progression early matters.
As shown in Exhibit 1, most OT attacks follow a similar path:
1. Initial compromise via phishing, credential theft, or third-party access.
2. Malware deployment on corporate IT systems or engineering workstations.
3. Lateral movement into the OT environment, often reaching HMIs or historian databases.
4. Loss of visibility and control, as attackers disable operator tools or encrypt system files.
5. Process-level impact, even without direct manipulation, as operators lose the ability to safely run or monitor critical systems.
Each step increases both the complexity and the cost of recovery. Once HMI and other operational systems go offline, operators lose critical visibility into how equipment is functioning. In response, teams often have no choice but to shut down machinery, halt production, or delay shipments until they can verify that the environment is safe to restart.
This is where Process-Oriented monitoring makes a difference:
By continuously validating real-world physical signals (like flow rates, current draw, and pressure) against the values displayed in the HMI or SCADA system, organizations gain an independent check on what’s really happening.
When the physical measurements diverge from what the system is reporting, it’s a clear sign that something has been disrupted, whether by malware, misconfiguration, or malicious command.
In short: the earlier you break the progression, the less damage (and cost) you incur.
OT cybersecurity can no longer be treated as a technical control system issue: it must be viewed as a strategic financial exposure. The risks are measurable, recurring, and increasingly reportable under regulatory regimes like the SEC’s cybersecurity disclosure rules.
Process level monitoring gives organizations a real-time way to detect, isolate, and respond to threats before they trigger large-scale disruption. It offers more than resilience -it gives finance and executive teams a way for cost avoidance, compliance readiness, and long-term risk reduction.
As attackers grow more sophisticated, and as OT becomes more connected, the question isn’t whether another breach will occur. it’s how early your organization will catch it. For that, the process level holds the answer.
