# Dan Haagman

Dan Haagman works on cybersecurity resilience, bringing together CISO experience, industry practice, and academic research. Haagman is a Research Fellow at the University of Warwick and contributes to the CISO Global Study.

- Profile: https://b2binfluencer.marketing/creators/dan-haagman/
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/danhaagman
- LinkedIn followers: 4,432
- Topics: artificial-intelligence, leadership, cybersecurity, cyber-resilience
- Based on 10 dated posts, latest 2026-10-04

## Summary

Dan Haagman is most useful for thought leadership on cyber resilience and questioning security priorities.

- Best for: A cybersecurity consultancy wanting thought leadership on cyber resilience for senior security audiences.
- Not for: A security-tooling vendor campaign needing product-led webinars, benchmarks, interface demos and free-trial sign-ups.
- Check first: Confirm commercial terms, disclosure, deliverables, and recent LinkedIn analytics before contacting them.

### Takeaways

- The Zero-Budget Test asks what a CISO would do first if cyber budget became zero.
- Dan Haagman is a Research Fellow at the University of Warwick.
- They propose removing unnecessary privilege, dependencies and exceptions that make attacks more damaging.

## Main ideas

- **Ask what should no longer be true, not what to buy next**: In an unscripted fireside conversation with Kai Feng Thia at CISO Singapore, Haagman asked what a CISO would do first if the cyber budget became zero tomorrow. The point was not to argue for less investment in cybersecurity, but to separate investment from thinking. Without the option of buying another control, the underlying system comes into view: the conditions organisations keep paying to defend, temporary exceptions that have become permanent architecture, and cases where detection and response compensate for complexity, access or dependencies that could be removed. Haagman calls cybersecurity an increasingly additive discipline — more controls, more telemetry, more capability — and argues that resilience can also come from subtraction. Detection, response and recovery remain essential, but getting better at fighting fires is different from designing an environment where fewer fires take hold.
- **Build the resilience evidence with the CISO community, not about it**: Haagman’s second recurring argument is about how the work gets done. They argue that the scale and pace of change across cybersecurity and AI demand deeper thinking about the field’s enduring problems, and that addressing them requires bringing together industry experience, the CISO community and academic research. Their post about becoming a Research Fellow at the University of Warwick, working with Prof. Carsten Maple and colleagues to expand the CISO Global Study into a wider global research programme, gives this argument an institutional footing. The ambition is applied: develop and test ideas against real-world experience, build evidence over time and return that learning to the CISO community that helped create it. A separate post places the programme within months of academic research and in-field exploration, with the CISO Global Study due to be formally announced.
- **Keep the ideas open to challenge: unscripted conversation as a working method**: A third, more procedural priority runs through the posts: Haagman treats dialogue as a way to test arguments, not broadcast conclusions. They deliberately left the CISO Singapore fireside unscripted, setting a direction and difficult questions before letting the conversation and audience shape what followed. They also credit others with changing their thinking: the research has brought challenge and refinement in both directions, producing a level of shared learning they say they have not experienced before. The Melbourne post takes a similar approach: Haagman writes about being in the eye of a storm while facing an opportunity to change course and do meaningful work together.

## Work to read

- [The Zero-Budget Test: what a CISO would still do if the cyber budget went to zero](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danhaagman_a-fascinating-conversation-with-kai-feng-activity-7495769608197550080-CF2q)
- [Research Fellow at the University of Warwick: turning CISO experience into a global study](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danhaagman_the-scale-and-pace-of-change-across-cybersecurity-activity-7508257909772984320-YDZ1)
- [Part two of a live conversation with Sunil Rane: the eye of the storm](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danhaagman_in-this-second-part-of-my-discussion-with-activity-7396401288219066368-lenQ)

## Brand relationships

- **University of Warwick** (employment)
- **CISO Singapore** (mention)

## Partnerships

Dan Haagman's posts do not mention a sponsorship programme, media kit, rate card or partnership inquiry route. They describe collaborative formats rather than commercial ones: a deliberately unscripted fireside with Kai Feng Thia at CISO Singapore, framed around a "Zero-Budget Test" question; a recorded discussion with Sunil Rane made in Melbourne; and a Research Fellow appointment at the University of Warwick alongside Prof. Carsten Maple, covering the CISO Global Study and work towards an applied industry research consortium. The Warwick role is an academic research position, not a brand placement, and the recorded conversations are not presented as paid partnerships. Buyers planning a thought-leadership collaboration should ask about available formats, disclosure expectations and terms.

## Alternatives

- Anand Thangaraju: Choose Anand Thangaraju when the collaboration centers on security buying behavior, product validation versus purchase approval, or retiring the idea that people are the weakest link. The posts are sharper than Dan Haagman’s on how security teams and vendors misread the buyer, and on replacing awareness training with system-design fixes such as phishing-resistant MFA, password managers, and just-in-time access. Thangaraju is the better choice for LinkedIn-native, myth-busting content aimed at security founders, vendors, or security leaders who must defend a purchase or programme internally.
- William Bohler: Choose William Bohler when the campaign goal is cybersecurity workforce well-being, burnout, retention, or practitioner research participation rather than resilience architecture. The posts are direct calls for a dissertation survey on mindfulness and motivation among cybersecurity professionals, with specific eligibility criteria and a defined audience of employed practitioners, mostly in the Eastern U.S. time zone and with ten years or fewer in the field. That makes Bohler a better choice for a study-recruitment partnership, an employee well-being initiative, or content that asks practitioners to contribute their own experience.
- Dr Michael Harvey: Choose Dr Michael Harvey only if the buyer’s task shifts from cybersecurity resilience to AI in education. The posts argue about teacher and student agency as AI moves from Gems to Skills, and about the Google Innovator Programme as a responsibility to keep asking better questions. That’s a strong fit for an AI-in-education thought-leadership campaign, especially one aimed at teachers, school leaders, and edtech product teams. For the current cybersecurity consulting campaign, Harvey is not the better choice on topic.

---
AI-assisted summary of public posts. Audience demographics are not available. Engagement appears only where we checked recent posts. Method: https://b2binfluencer.marketing/methodology/