Start your day with intelligence. Get The OODA Daily Pulse.
Informing your decisions with actionable intelligence
Start your day with intelligence. Get The OODA Daily Pulse.
Informing your decisions with actionable intelligence
Across 2025, cybersecurity evolved from a domain of incident response into a core arena of geopolitical competition, AI acceleration, and systemic risk (demanding faster OODA loops, deeper hardware-level trust, decision-making matrices based on strategic foresight, and governance models suited to autonomy rather than control).
For National Security and Enterprise IT leadership, the new threats distilled gradually over the course of a challenging year as it became evident that technological acceleration had outpaced institutional readiness – leaving the private sector exposed as cyber norms eroded, governance diverged, sanctions escalated risk, and information-sharing frameworks broke down. As a result, in the U.S., Offensive Cyber gradually took center stage, and Quantum Security and Post-Quantum Readiness went from a strategic abstraction to a tactical call to action. Agentic AI, too, presented an emergent operational cybersecurity risk.
By year’s end, the central conclusion was clear: cybersecurity in 2025 is no longer primarily a technical discipline; It is a strategic risk domain where autonomy, supply-chain integrity, and decision advantage determine national security, enterprise survival, and global stability.
The 2025 year-end review of cybersecurity activity depicts a decisive shift from episodic cyber incidents toward a sustained era of strategic, systemic cyber competition shaped by AI acceleration, hardware dependency, and geopolitical fragmentation. Across the year, cybersecurity evolved into a core instrument of state power and economic leverage, with nation-states normalizing offensive cyber postures, integrating cyber operations into broader deterrence strategies, and targeting supply chains, infrastructure, and private-sector actors as strategic terrain.
The rapid emergence of AI-enabled threats (particularly agentic AI, LLM-driven ransomware, and autonomous attack tooling) fundamentally altered the speed, scale, and asymmetry of cyber risk, while simultaneously forcing defenders to adopt hybrid human-AI red-teaming, zero-trust hardware models, and anticipatory security architectures.
Quantum readiness, post-quantum cryptography, and hardware provenance (HBOM) surfaced as foundational – not future – requirements, reinforcing the reality that cyber resilience now begins at the chip level.
Throughout the year, the erosion of global cyber norms, uneven governance, sanctions-driven escalation, and weakening public-private information sharing underscored a growing gap between technological acceleration and institutional capacity.
The risk…is reciprocal normalization: as the United States speaks more openly, adversaries may do the same, accelerating an arms-race dynamic in cyber operations. Still, the strategic wager of 2025 was clear: controlled visibility, not total silence, may now offer greater decision advantage in an increasingly crowded and contested cyber domain.
In contrast to the long-standing maxim of silence, 2025 marked a notable shift in U.S. cyber strategy: offensive cyber operations moved closer to the center of public policy, signaling, and deterrence. Rather than relying solely on ambiguity, the United States increasingly used selective disclosure, legal framing, and overt signaling to shape adversary behavior, reassure allies, and reinforce norms around acceptable and unacceptable conduct in cyberspace.
Throughout the year, senior U.S. officials, congressional leaders, and defense authorities spoke more openly about the role of offensive cyber in national defense (linking cyber operations to sanctions regimes, military deterrence, and cross-domain responses). This visibility was not accidental. It reflected a strategic judgment that silence alone no longer deterred sophisticated adversaries who had normalized cyber aggression and were willing to absorb ambiguity as the cost of doing business. In this context, public acknowledgment became a tool of escalation management rather than recklessness.
By bringing offensive cyber into clearer view, U.S. policy aimed to reclaim initiative in the information environment – demonstrating capability, signaling thresholds, and integrating cyber into a broader deterrence posture alongside economic, diplomatic, and military instruments. The risk, however, is reciprocal normalization: as the United States speaks more openly, adversaries may do the same, accelerating an arms-race dynamic in cyber operations. Still, the strategic wager of 2025 was clear: controlled visibility, not total silence, may now offer greater decision advantage in an increasingly crowded and contested cyber domain.
The takeaway for 2025 is clear: quantum is no longer a distant disruptor sitting on the horizon of cybersecurity planning. It has entered the decision-action cycle, forcing governments and enterprises alike to migrate systems, fund transitions, and re-architect trust before adversaries dictate the timeline.
In 2025, quantum security crossed a strategic threshold. What had long remained in the observe and orient phases of the OODA Loop (characterized by roadmaps, horizon scanning, and speculative timelines) moved decisively into decide and act. Across government, industry, and allied security communities, quantum was no longer treated as a future disruption but as a present operational risk demanding concrete action on cryptography, infrastructure, and governance:
…a marketplace shaped less by regulation than by necessity. In an environment where institutional capacity lags technological change, crisis has become the forcing function – turning cybersecurity from a cost center into a strategic innovation engine and positioning AI-native startups as first responders in the next phase of cyber conflict.
In 2025, cascading cyber crises (AI-powered ransomware, agentic attacks, supply-chain compromise, and post-quantum uncertainty) did more than expose institutional fragility; they catalyzed a new AI-native cybersecurity marketplace. As legacy security stacks struggled to keep pace, startups moved faster – building agent-first defenses, autonomous red-teaming platforms, hardware-aware trust layers, and compliance-by-design tools that align security with acceleration rather than resistance.
This emerging ecosystem is defined by speed, specialization, and integration. AI-native startups are not retrofitting models onto existing workflows; they are re-architecting cybersecurity around continuous testing, real-time decision advantage, and machine-scale defense. Venture interest followed operational demand, with Black Hat and OODAcon highlighting a shift from point solutions to interoperable security primitives designed for autonomy, supply-chain resilience, and adversarial AI.
The result is a marketplace shaped less by regulation than by necessity. In an environment where institutional capacity lags technological change, crisis has become the forcing function (turning cybersecurity from a cost center into a strategic innovation engine and positioning AI-native startups as first responders in the next phase of cyber conflict).
January framed 2025 as a year of structural cyber realignment. Analysis focused on the emergence of adversarial cyber blocs (“Cyber Warsaw Pact” dynamics), China’s maturation as a global cyber power, and the Biden administration’s final cybersecurity executive order. The month emphasized a transition from episodic cyber incidents to persistent strategic competition, with cyber operations increasingly integrated into statecraft and deterrence planning.
February highlighted leadership and doctrine uncertainty. The nomination of a nontraditional ONCD candidate raised questions about the future direction of U.S. cyber strategy, while debate intensified over whether China would publicly adopt an active cyber defense posture. The month underscored growing ambiguity around norms, escalation thresholds, and transparency in offensive cyber operations.
March centered on threat realism and preparedness. Coverage of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Annual Threat Assessment reinforced the convergence of cyber, AI, and geopolitics. Major themes included supply-chain exploitation (notably China’s “Silk Typhoon”), post-quantum cryptography milestones, and the rise of hybrid AI-human red teams. Cyber risk was increasingly framed as systemic, not technical.
April focused on governance and responsibility. Debates emerged over whether states should bear primary responsibility for their own cybersecurity, alongside analysis of China’s more overt attribution tactics. Warnings from NSA, CISA, and FBI on DNS-based threats (“Fast Flux”) and European concern over quantum readiness reinforced the need for anticipatory defense rather than reactive compliance.
May marked the normalization of weaponized cyberspace. Japan’s adoption of active cyber defense signaled widening acceptance of pre-emptive cyber postures. Simultaneously, on-chip security and zero-trust hardware became policy-relevant topics, while adversarial use of LLMs and agentic AI accelerated a new class of scalable cyber attackers.
June emphasized fractures and realignments among adversaries and allies. Reports of Chinese cyber espionage against Russia revealed limits to adversarial partnerships. International debates intensified around attribution, UN cybercrime treaties, and quantum leadership gaps. Agentic AI red-teaming emerged as a critical capability for testing autonomy at scale.
July highlighted cyber risk as a board-level and investor concern. Analysis of S&P 500 AI disclosures showed AI being recognized as a material risk class. Discussions linked cybersecurity directly to geopolitical instability, biocybersecurity, and federal decentralization of cyber responsibilities (suggesting diffusion rather than consolidation of cyber authority).
August was defined by escalation and convergence. Russia and China intensified cyber targeting of global infrastructure, while AI-powered ransomware demonstrated force-multiplier effects. Major attention went to quantum readiness (“Q-day”), cyber-crypto convergence, startup ecosystems, and the weakening of traditional government-private sector information-sharing models.
September focused on operational lessons and enterprise exposure. Continued fallout from the 2024 CrowdStrike outage sharpened attention on harmonization risk and systemic dependencies. Agentic AI governance, LLM-driven workforce displacement, and precedent-setting regulatory actions (including risks of foreign retaliation) underscored the strategic consequences of technology decisions.
October concentrated on hardware, quantum reality, and offensive AI. HBOM and hardware provenance emerged as foundational to zero-trust security. Lessons from DARPA’s AI Cyber Challenge highlighted both promise and limits of autonomous cyber defense. Law firms and professional services were identified as prime APT targets, reinforcing the expansion of cyber risk beyond traditional critical infrastructure.
November emphasized supply-chain security and systemic financial risk. China’s impending cybersecurity law amendments raised alarms for U.S. firms, while AI-driven herding and bias were framed as new sources of financial instability. Discussions on offensive cyber market formation suggested a shift toward more formalized cyber capabilities ecosystems.
December synthesized the year’s inflection points. Former CISA Director Jen Easterly framed AI as a cyber inflection point for securing software at scale, while analysis warned of private-sector weaponization and sanctions-driven cyber escalation. OODAcon 2025 discussions highlighted the transition from automation to autonomy, and geopolitical flashpoints – from tariffs to Asia-Pacific cyber frontlines – closed the year on a note of heightened strategic risk.
About the Author
Daniel Pereira is research director at OODA. He is a foresight strategist, creative technologist, and an information communication technology (ICT) and digital media researcher with 20+ years of experience directing public/private partnerships and strategic innovation initiatives.
Informing your decisions with actionable intelligence
Informing your decisions with actionable intelligence