M&A Security Due Diligence: Why Security Audits Miss What Actually Matters .
M&A security audits check compliance boxes but miss critical vulnerabilities. Explore why acquirers need penetration testing to reveal real risks before deals close.
undergo independent assessments every two years for the next twenty years
. The acquisition's value proposition eroded substantially through regulatory penalties, remediation costs, and mandated oversight.
These aren't isolated incidents. According to research published in early 2025 analyzing 18 years of data across more than 5,000 U.S. public firms, companies that engage in more mergers and acquisitions experience significantly more data breaches. The effect intensifies when parent and target firms operate in different business domains, as integration complexity creates security gaps that attackers exploit.
The Audit Illusion
Traditional M&A due diligence focuses on financials, legal risks, and operational efficiencies. When cybersecurity enters the process at all, it typically takes the form of questionnaires, policy reviews, and compliance audits. The target company confirms they have firewalls, antivirus software, access controls, and documented security policies. Auditors verify the existence of these controls against frameworks like ISO 27001, SOC 2, or industry-specific standards. The result is binary: compliant or non-compliant.
This approach answers whether security requirements exist on paper. It doesn't answer whether those requirements actually prevent exploitation.
An audit confirms you have multi-factor authentication enabled. It doesn't reveal that your implementation allows legacy protocols that bypass MFA entirely. An audit verifies you've deployed endpoint protection across the organization. It doesn't discover that administrative credentials are stored in plaintext on a server the endpoint protection doesn't monitor. An audit checks that you conduct regular vulnerability scans. It doesn't test whether identified vulnerabilities can actually be chained together to achieve lateral movement through your network.
The limitation isn't a failure of auditors. It's a structural constraint of the methodology. Audits follow predefined checklists based on established standards. Those standards undergo lengthy update processes that struggle to keep pace with how attackers actually operate. Security audits give acquirers a false sense of confidence because passing an audit doesn't mean the target's systems can withstand a determined adversary.
The security risks that damage acquisition value don't announce themselves through compliance documentation. They surface during adversarial testing that simulates how attackers actually compromise systems.
Penetration testing starts from the attacker's perspective, not the compliance framework's perspective. Testers receive limited information about the target environment and attempt to gather knowledge through reconnaissance, identify vulnerabilities through active exploitation, and establish persistent access through the same techniques malicious actors employ. The objective isn't to verify the existence of controls but to determine whether those controls prevent real compromise.
This reveals critical differences. Where audits confirm access controls exist, penetration testing discovers whether former employees still retain system access months after departure, a common vulnerability during M&A transitions when HR and IT coordination breaks down. Where audits verify encryption standards, penetration testing identifies whether encryption keys are properly managed or accessible through privilege escalation. Where audits document incident response procedures, breach simulation reveals whether security teams can actually detect and contain intrusions during the chaos of organizational integration.
Consider a manufacturing company acquisition. Standard due diligence confirms the target has segmented their operational technology from corporate networks and implemented monitoring systems. Penetration testing discovers that legacy VPN access from a third-party maintenance vendor provides a direct path into both networks, and the monitoring system doesn't log connections from trusted vendor IP addresses. An attacker with those vendor credentials, whether through compromise or insider threat, can move laterally through the environment without detection. The compliance audit found no issue. The security gap exists regardless.
The Integration Window
Cybercriminals specifically target M&A transitions because the integration period creates predictable vulnerabilities. Employees from the acquired company often retain system access long after roles change or after they leave. IT teams rush to merge disparate systems under deadline pressure. Security policies from both organizations conflict, creating gaps where neither set of controls applies effectively. Authentication systems remain siloed while data flows between them increase.
Analysis of 2024 customer security incidents found that manufacturing accounted for 42 percent of M&A-related security issues, likely due to reliance on legacy systems and operational technologies that complicate both updates and incident response. Finance, insurance, and professional services sectors each accounted for 8 percent, possibly because their regulatory compliance requirements or less complex technology integrations provide some protection, though not immunity.
The pattern across sectors shows consistent failure modes. Inadequate logging and visibility from acquired assets creates blind spots where unauthorized access and data exfiltration occur undetected. Employees who inadvertently ignore unfamiliar IT policies generate alert fatigue that masks actual malicious activity. Standardizing internal tools and security configurations across merged organizations diverts attention from monitoring for external threats.
These vulnerabilities don't exist because acquired companies are negligent. They exist because integration creates temporary chaos, and attackers exploit chaos systematically.
The Due Diligence Gap
The disconnect between audit-based due diligence and actual security manifests most clearly in what acquirers learn post-deal. Security questionnaires ask if the target has experienced breaches. Targets disclose known incidents. What questionnaires don't reveal are the compromises the target hasn't detected yet because their monitoring capabilities have gaps, or the vulnerabilities that haven't been exploited but will be once integration begins.
Penetration testing and breach simulation during due diligence answer different questions than audits. Instead of "Does this company have security controls?" the questions become "Can an attacker compromise this environment?" and "Will this company detect the compromise?" and "What sensitive data can be exfiltrated before containment?"
Those aren't theoretical concerns. They represent the actual scenarios acquirers inherit when security due diligence relies solely on compliance verification.
In our penetration testing engagements across various industries, we consistently observe patterns that directly apply to M&A scenarios. Organizations that believe their security posture is strong because they passed compliance audits often discover critical vulnerabilities when subjected to adversarial testing. The gap between documented security controls and effective security controls widens during organizational transitions when established procedures break down.
What Smart Acquirers Require
The strongest M&A security due diligence combines compliance auditing with adversarial validation. Audits confirm the target meets regulatory requirements and has documented security processes. Penetration testing and breach simulation reveal whether those processes withstand real attacks.
This approach requires engaging security testing early in the due diligence timeline, not as an afterthought before closing. Testers need sufficient time to conduct thorough assessments without rushing. Findings need to flow into deal structure negotiations, not get discovered post-acquisition when leverage evaporates.
Smart acquirers also plan integration security before the deal closes. This means identifying which systems will be merged first, where authentication will be consolidated, how logging and monitoring will be unified, and what security measures protect the integration process itself. The IBM research makes clear that the integration period represents peak vulnerability. Treating security as a post-closing IT project rather than a pre-closing strategic priority substantially increases breach risk.
The regulatory environment reinforces this approach. After high-profile acquisition failures like Marriott-Starwood, regulators expect evidence of thorough cybersecurity due diligence. The SEC updated disclosure guidelines following the Verizon-Yahoo debacle to ensure shareholders and acquiring companies aren't kept in the dark about breaches. GDPR penalties explicitly reference failures in acquisition due diligence. Cyber insurance underwriters increasingly scrutinize M&A security practices when evaluating coverage.
The Real Question
Mergers and acquisitions are fundamentally about acquiring value. Security vulnerabilities destroy value through breach costs, regulatory fines, integration delays, customer attrition, and reputational damage that persists for years.
The question isn't whether to include cybersecurity in due diligence. Every sophisticated acquirer already does. The question is whether that due diligence reveals actual security or just documented compliance.
Checkbox audits provide the appearance of thoroughness while missing the vulnerabilities that matter. Adversarial testing provides evidence of what works and what fails when someone actively tries to break in. For acquisitions where cybersecurity directly affects deal value and post-merger success, that difference is worth the investment.
At Principle Breach, we approach security testing through first principles analysis and adversarial validation. Whether evaluating acquisition targets, validating security investments, or testing integrated environments post-merger, we measure security based on evidence, not promises. Because in M&A, what you don't know costs more than what you do.
Directive // TAKE_ACTION
Know What You're Buying. Before You Buy It.
Standard audits show compliance. Security testing reveals risk. Get adversarial validation before your next acquisition closes.
