This week, a profile crossed my radar: someone running two of her own brands in offensive cybersecurity, holding certifications as demanding as OSCP, visibly young for the level of authority she already carries in the field.
My first instinct was to think she was an exception. She isn't.
A recent industry report, surveying more than 2,000 hackers, confirms that close to 70% of active hackers today are under 34, and 40% are between 24 and 30. Formal credentials stopped being the filter they used to be: people who train themselves through intensive, real practice compete on equal footing with those who come from a traditional academic path. Another striking data point: more than half of millennials already see ethical hacking as a legitimate professional career, compared to less than a third of people over 35.
This isn't just a curious fact about one industry. It's a signal of something deeper: real authority today is built on demonstrable results, not on accumulated years or a title assumed to be enough.
And this doesn't stay confined to the world of hacking. I see it directly in my own work: when a small business decides who to trust with their security, the natural instinct is to ask "how many years has this person been doing this" or "how big is the company". That question says less and less. The question that actually protects you is different: what can this person or company demonstrate, with verifiable evidence, not years on a resume or the size of a logo.
It also changes how I decide who to trust: a partner, a collaborator, a distribution channel. I'd rather have a track record of concrete, verifiable results than a long trajectory that can only be assumed.
How about you? How do you evaluate who to trust with something critical? By years of experience, or by results that can be verified?
First we see. Then we decide.
Want to know if your infrastructure has the same kind of exposure? Schedule a technical conversation with Directsales PTY.