Microsoft ties executive pay to security after multiple failures and breaches

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Incentives, Metrics, and Goodhart’s Law

  • Many welcome tying executive pay to security but worry the metrics will be gamed.
  • Concerns that teams may under-report or avoid tracking issues to “look secure.”
  • Several cite the dynamic where once metrics affect pay, they stop being good measures (Goodhart’s Law).
  • Some think clawback provisions are needed because security failures surface years later, possibly after executives move on.

Security Theater, Checklists, and Audits

  • Multiple comments describe security as checkbox-driven: long vendor questionnaires, generic SaaS checklists applied regardless of fit.
  • On the buyer side, people acknowledge this is often about process and documentation rather than deep technical review.
  • Audits are seen as superficial; they catch obvious gaps but not sophisticated attack paths.

Customer Demand and Cloud Providers

  • One view: historically many Azure customers didn’t truly prioritize security because incentives were weak and reputational damage small.
  • Another view: security is “table stakes” — you don’t win deals for it, but you lose them if you’re bad. For hyperscalers, most customers can only rely on reputation and compliance reports.

Will This Actually Improve Security?

  • Some see it as a positive, visible signal that security is being prioritized at the top.
  • Others predict more cover‑ups, wordsmithing, and internal blame-shifting rather than substantive change.
  • Suggestions include making security a condition of keeping executive roles, not just a bonus lever.

Organizational and Cultural Factors

  • Microsoft is described as huge and fragmented; security posture varies widely by team. The weakest link problem is emphasized.
  • Some expect slower feature velocity if security is taken seriously, and question whether leadership will tolerate that trade-off.
  • There’s cynicism that other corporate priorities (AI, telemetry, ads, DEI, shareholder value) may conflict with or dilute the security push.

Sentiment Toward Microsoft and Security UX

  • Long-standing distrust of Microsoft’s security record is voiced.
  • Some expect more intrusive controls, telemetry, and mandatory trainings framed as “security by default,” possibly at the expense of usability and transparency.