Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
The no-loss attack
An investigation was carried out. A senior professional stepped aside “pending enquiry”. The leadership role was quietly reassigned, and absence was explained as “internal reasons”.
There were no copyrights or IP stolen. There was no customer or internal data leak. Neither a financial loss was announced, nor was there any public breach notification.
Then there were whispers and rumours. This was followed by reputational ambiguity. An investigation was carried out. There was insult, and the career of the victim paused without a formal accusation. Finally, came the resignation – sure as night and day!
Nothing has to be lost for everything to feel compromised.
Loss is not just ‘financial’. It can be reputational. Reputational damage is invisible violence. It is hard to detect and even harder to contest – because at stake, is more than just the career. Not all cyberattacks are designed to extract value (ransom).
In some cases, “consequences” are the objective. The focus is not on taking something away, it is leaving something behind; a doubt that did not previously exist.
In others, there may be no missing money, no corrupted systems, and no clear victim metric. But if someone’s access gets reviewed, their responsibilities have been quietly reduced, and the tone of conversations with them undergoes a change, it is clear that suspicion has entered the system.
In such contexts, an attack need not leave behind evidence. It only needs to leave behind enough breadcrumbs to enable inference. There is no accusation, only a suggestion, and suggestions are often sufficient to reshape outcomes.
In that sense, ruining credibility is more effective than stealing data.
What makes these cyberattacks effective
The power of such attacks lies in the attacker’s knowledge of what institutions are forced to do next. It could be a timed leak, or a selective disclosure, or a contextless artefact. Anything that creates plausibility for an accusation. No system might have been fully compromised. No fabrication might have been done. If enough doubt is sowed, if enough suspicion arises, and an inference can be drawn, an internal investigation is most likely to follow.
These attacks exploit procedural response by creating “partial” or “false” truths. They operate in grey zones, not red flags.
Reputational defence mechanisms can become reputational weapons
Organisations are risk-averse, procedurally-bound and reputation-sensitive. That is why when faced with the risk of loss of reputation, the board demands stability and the leadership prioritises containment. This can trigger all or any of these defensive responses within the organisation – internal silence, distancing from the event, or precautionary actions.
Silence is a risk containment strategy, not avoidance. It buys time to see if the issue escalates, or fizzles out. Organisations see distancing from the event as system protection, not judgement. It is done to prevent a contagion from the event. Simple precautionary actions like reviewing access, or reassign duties are an answer to ‘What did you do when you first noticed something?’. Once taken, precaution resembles guilt externally, even though internally it is framed as neutral.
Reputational attacks work because organisations respond rationally to uncertainty. And because uncertainty cannot be tolerated, even in the absence of guilt, career damage occurs.
The inquiry may conclude but the pause rarely does
In many such cases, the investigation eventually ends. Files are closed, access logs reviewed, intent found to be ambiguous rather than malicious. But the pause that follows rarely lifts in the same way. Careers do not resume at the point they were interrupted; they restart, if at all, under a different light. A lot of times, the person changes jobs, which could also be a difficult switch, since the industry “gets to know”.
Modern organisations are designed to prevent risk, not to reverse suspicion. And the mechanisms that protect institutions often leave individuals carrying residual doubt – whether something was actually found against them. Such a damage is administrative rather than criminal, procedural rather than punitive. It requires no conviction, only a sequence of reasonable actions taken in response to uncertainty. In that sense, some contemporary attacks do not depend on theft or exposure at all.
They succeed when systems behave predictably, when caution outruns context, and when reputational harm becomes an outcome without a single illegal act ever needing to be proven.
Nitish Bhushan writes on technology, relationships, and moral dilemmas, examining how human behaviour shapes consequences.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.