It's the handover no one wants. An outgoing Fortune 1000 CISO, after just 11 months, had a stark warning for their replacement: "Don't take this job."

The candid exit interview, shared via a LinkedIn post by security consultant Douglas Ring on March 26, 2026, paints a grim picture of a security program set up to fail. The unnamed CISO cited a complete breakdown of trust and support from leadership, culminating in a culture where the security chief was a scapegoat, not a partner.

"The company doesn't want security - they want someone to blame," the CISO was told by their own predecessor. This chilling prophecy proved true. The CISO detailed 23 separate budget requests for critical tooling and personnel that were either denied outright or slashed by over 60%. The inevitable result? Eight security incidents directly attributable to these denied resources, for which the CISO was held solely responsible.

The role was a classic bait-and-switch. Promised a team of eight and an $800,000 budget, the CISO arrived to find a skeleton crew of two and a paltry $200,000. Reporting to the CTO instead of the CEO further neutered their authority, making it impossible to drive meaningful change. This is a textbook example of what security experts call a "glass cliff" CISO role – a high-stakes position with inadequate resources and a high probability of failure, often given to diverse candidates to create a facade of progress.

This cautionary tale is a wake-up call for any CISO evaluating a new opportunity. The lesson is clear: due diligence isn't just about the tech stack. It's about interrogating the culture, the reporting structure, and the board's actual commitment to security. As the outgoing CISO put it, "Your predecessor is your best source of intel. If they tell you to run, listen."