Does Stephen make a good Traitor? Cyber pros assess his game so far

Finally, producers of the reality TV format The Traitors have recruited a cybersecurity worker. But do Stephen’s skills – from adversarial thinking to behavioral analysis – necessarily put him at an advantage in the castle?

As the current UK series of The Traitors gathers momentum, London-based contestant Stephen Libby has emerged as one of the more closely observed players.

A cybersecurity consultant working with AI pentesting startup Synack, the 32-year-old is the first contestant from a cyber background to appear on the UK version of the show and has been selected as a Traitor.

For those unfamiliar with the format, The Traitors, which is now in its fourth season on the BBC, is a psychological strategy game set in a remote Scottish castle, where a small group of secretly chosen “Traitors” must deceive and eliminate fellow contestants, while the remaining “Faithfuls” attempt to identify and banish them at the Round Table.

As a curveball this year, as well as the three green hooded Traitors who work together, there is a fourth, red cloaked secret traitor working independently who gets the final say on which of the Faithfuls should be put up for elimination.

Stephen’s gameplay to date has been defined by restraint and stylish menswear. He’s fast becoming the castle’s number one style crush with his 70s Ken Doll fashion vibes and jackets sparking their own reddit threads.

The London-based security analyst tends to listen more than he speaks, weighs his interventions carefully, and maintains a calm, even tone in group discussions.

While that approach aligns closely with professional security practice, it has also made it harder for fellow contestants to read him, a factor that has already drawn suspicion.

Why Stephen’s name is coming up

Despite his background, Stephen’s quiet strategizing appears to have turned up the heat on him in the castle at times.

Faithful contestant Ross has openly questioned Stephen’s behavior which can be linked back to the decision to eliminate Faithful Ben from the game. The decision to 'murder' Ben after Ben publicly stated he might be killed that night while Stephen was in the room created a clear link back to those present, including Stephen. Jessie, a Faithful, quickly picked up on this connection, leading Ross to focus suspicion on Stephen at the next roundtable.

Suspicion has also been discussed beyond the broadcast episodes. On the Traitors: Uncloaked, a visualized companion podcast, fellow contestant Judy said she felt Stephen’s friendliness sometimes appeared “performative” and “ingenuine.”

His controlled social style is being interpreted by some players as intentional rather than instinctive. However, there are also signs that he might not be as cool under pressure as he thinks he is.

On Saturday's show Stephen and fellow Traitor Rachel made a risky and unnecessary move by attempting a secret task while another contestant, Reece, was within earshot, allowing him to witness the interaction and raise suspicion later.

Stephen’s strategic instincts were most visible in Saturday’s episode, when he voted to banish fellow Traitor and real-life barrister Hugo. At the time, Stephen appeared under pressure at the round table as a couple of Faithfuls started to interrogate him.

Fortunately for Stephen, Hugo attracted more suspicion, and his decision to vote for the barrister as a traitor actually reduced pressure on himself and fellow Traitor Rachel.

It was a calculated, albeit short-term move that prioritized survivability over loyalty – a decision familiar to anyone used to managing risk in adversarial environments.

What cybersecurity professionals make of Stephen’s approach

For cybersecurity practitioners watching the show, Stephen’s gameplay is instantly recognizable. Darren Kimuli, information security lead at Canopius, a Lloyd’s of London Insurance Firm, says the overlap between cyber work and The Traitors is substantial.

“Cybersecurity teaches you to think like both the defender and the attacker, a mindset perfectly aligned with the psychology of The Traitors.”

Darren Kimuli, information security lead at Canopius,

Kimuli draws clear parallels between castle dynamics and security practice: "Threat modeling in security mirrors threat modeling in the castle: identify motives, map behaviors, and predict who strikes next.”

“Pattern recognition is second nature to cyber professionals – spotting micro-behaviours is no different from spotting anomalies in a log file.”

“Risk assessment is our daily bread – deciding who to trust under pressure is simply another form of live incident triage.”

Trevor Horwitz, CISO and founder of TrustNet, agrees that Stephen’s professional background would naturally support deception and detection alike.

“Cybersecurity consultants are trained to think like attackers because that’s the job,” he told Cybernews.

“We model threats, analyze behavior, identify anomalies, and test systems for weak points. In a game like The Traitors, those same skills translate into reading the room, staying ahead of alliances, and controlling the narrative.”

Trevor Horwitz, CISO and founder of TrustNet

Muhammad Yahya Patel, a global cybersecurity evangelist who has just joined the EMEA team at Huntress, adds that Stephen’s calm under pressure would be familiar to anyone who has worked through a live security incident.

“Threat modeling and red teaming require simulating adversarial behavior – those skills lend themselves to detecting bluffing, inconsistencies, and manipulation.”

Patel adds that those with Open-Source Intelligence experience will be extremely observant and will keep an eye on the smallest of details to help them gather intel and ask more meaningful questions. "Trust is not assumed in the world of security, therefore they will be naturally cautious and looking for verification at each juncture."

Where cyber instincts can misfire

However, the same experts caution that technical strengths do not always translate cleanly into social environments.

Perhaps clocking the “Ross” incident, Kimuli notes that “technical brilliance doesn’t automatically translate into social brilliance” and “over-analysis can be as dangerous as under-analysis.”

He adds: “Cybersecurity rewards skepticism, but in a social game, too much skepticism can isolate you quickly.”

“A cyber expert’s calm under pressure is an asset, but emotional unreadability can unintentionally paint a target on your back.”

“In cybersecurity, silence is strategic. In The Traitors, silence can look like guilt.”

Stephen would also not have calculated the addition of a secret Traitor in the castle, which adds an extra challenge to his gameplay, and Kimuli adds, “We’re trained to trust data, not people – but in The Traitors, the data lies, misleads, and smiles back at you.”

Patel similarly points out that not all cyber roles emphasize social interpretation.

“Those from incident response, threat hunting, or social engineering backgrounds are more likely to excel at a game like Traitors than purely technical specialists.”

Muhammad Yahya Patel, Huntress

As Kimuli summarizes, “Adversarial thinking gives cyber experts an edge – we’re trained to anticipate deception long before it becomes visible.”

Whether that edge continues to protect Stephen or ultimately exposes him remains a thread that will no doubt be watched as closely as those in his Insta-ready wardrobe.

Unlock more exclusive Cybernews content on YouTube.