InfoSec and Compliance – With 20 years of blogging experience, DISC InfoSec blog is dedicated to providing trusted insights and practical solutions for professionals and organizations navigating the evolving cybersecurity landscape. From cutting-edge threats to compliance strategies, this blog is your reliable resource for staying informed and secure. Dive into the content, connect with the community, and elevate your InfoSec expertise!
Suspicious Offers Be wary of emails offering free money or alarming threats (e.g., frozen accounts). These emotional triggers are classic phishing tactics.
Free Money Red Flag Phishing often exploits greed—if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Generic Greetings Emails that don’t address you personally (e.g., “Dear customer”) are likely mass phishing attempts.
Urgency Traps Don’t act on emails that pressure you to respond immediately—urgency is a common manipulation tactic.
Requests for Personal Info Legitimate organizations won’t ask for sensitive information via email. Don’t provide personal or business data.
Bad Grammar, Bad Sign Poor spelling and awkward grammar are red flags that an email may be a phishing attempt.
Mismatch in Sender Info Always compare the sender’s name to the actual email address to spot spoofing attempts.
Check Before Clicking Links Hover over links to see the actual URL before clicking—phishers often disguise malicious sites.
Email Header Clues Review email headers if you’re suspicious; a sketchy history is a clear sign to delete the email.
Feedback
This tip sheet provides clear, actionable guidance and covers the essentials of phishing detection well. The advice is practical for both technical and non-technical users, with an emphasis on behavior-based awareness. Overall, it’s a solid tool for raising awareness and promoting a culture of cautious clicking.
Aaron McCray, Field CISO at CDW, discusses the evolving role of the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). He emphasizes that CISOs are transitioning from traditional cybersecurity roles to strategic advisors who guide enterprise-wide AI governance and risk management. This shift, termed “CISO 3.0,” involves aligning AI initiatives with business objectives and compliance requirements.
McCray highlights the challenges of integrating AI-driven security tools, particularly regarding visibility, explainability, and false positives. He notes that while AI can enhance security operations, it also introduces complexities, such as the need for transparency in AI decision-making processes and the risk of overwhelming security teams with irrelevant alerts. Ensuring that AI tools integrate seamlessly with existing infrastructure is also a significant concern.
The article underscores the necessity for CISOs and their teams to develop new skill sets, including proficiency in data science and machine learning. McCray points out that understanding how AI models are trained and the data they rely on is crucial for managing associated risks. Adaptive learning platforms that simulate real-world scenarios are mentioned as effective tools for closing the skills gap.
When evaluating third-party AI tools, McCray advises CISOs to prioritize accountability and transparency. He warns against tools that lack clear documentation or fail to provide insights into their decision-making processes. Red flags include opaque algorithms and vendors unwilling to disclose their AI models’ inner workings.
In conclusion, McCray emphasizes that as AI becomes increasingly embedded across business functions, CISOs must lead the charge in establishing robust governance frameworks. This involves not only implementing effective security measures but also fostering a culture of continuous learning and adaptability within their organizations.
Feedback
The article effectively captures the transformative impact of AI on the CISO role, highlighting the shift from technical oversight to strategic leadership. This perspective aligns with the broader industry trend of integrating cybersecurity considerations into overall business strategy.
By addressing the practical challenges of AI integration, such as explainability and infrastructure compatibility, the article provides valuable insights for organizations navigating the complexities of modern cybersecurity landscapes. These considerations are critical for maintaining trust in AI systems and ensuring their effective deployment.
The emphasis on developing new skill sets underscores the dynamic nature of cybersecurity roles in the AI era. Encouraging continuous learning and adaptability is essential for organizations to stay ahead of evolving threats and technological advancements.
The cautionary advice regarding third-party AI tools serves as a timely reminder of the importance of due diligence in vendor selection. Transparency and accountability are paramount in building secure and trustworthy AI systems.
The article could further benefit from exploring specific case studies or examples of organizations successfully implementing AI governance frameworks. Such insights would provide practical guidance and illustrate the real-world application of the concepts discussed.
Overall, the article offers a comprehensive overview of the evolving responsibilities of CISOs in the context of AI integration. It serves as a valuable resource for cybersecurity professionals seeking to navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by AI technologies.
AI is rapidly transforming systems, workflows, and even adversary tactics, regardless of whether our frameworks are ready. It isn’t bound by tradition and won’t wait for governance to catch up…When AI evaluates risks, it may enhance the speed and depth of risk management but only when combined with human oversight, governance frameworks, and ethical safeguards.
A new ISO standard, ISO 42005 provides organizations a structured, actionable pathway to assess and document AI risks, benefits, and alignment with global compliance frameworks.
Increased Regulatory Complexity: With GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, and emerging regulations like DORA (EU), EU AI Act businesses are seeking specialized compliance partners.
SME Cybersecurity Prioritization: Mid-sized businesses are investing in vCISO services to bridge expertise gaps without hiring full-time CISOs.
Rise of Cyber Insurance: Insurers are demanding evidence of strong compliance postures, increasing demand for third-party audits and vCISO engagements.
Growth Projections
vCISO market is expected to grow at 17–20% CAGR through 2028.
Compliance automation tools, Process orchestration (AI) and advisory services are growing due to demand for cost-effective solutions.
2. Competitor Landscape
Direct Competitors
Virtual CISO Services by Cynomi, Fractional CISO, and SideChannel
Offer standardized packages, onboarding frameworks, and clear SLA-based services.
Differentiate through cost, specialization (e.g., healthcare, fintech), and automation integration.
Indirect Competitors
MSSPs and GRC Platforms like Arctic Wolf, Drata, Vanta
Provide automated compliance dashboards, sometimes bundled with consulting.
Threat: Position as “compliance-as-a-service,” reducing perceived need for vCISO.
3. Differentiation Levers
What Works in the Market
Vertical Specialization: Deep focus on industries like legal, SaaS, fintech, or healthcare adds credibility.
Thought Leadership: Regular LinkedIn posts, webinars, and compliance guides elevate visibility and trust.
Compliance-as-a-Path-to-Growth: Reframing compliance as a revenue enabler (e.g., “SOC 2 = more enterprise clients”) resonates well.
Emerging Niches
vDPO (Virtual Data Protection Officer) in the EU market.
Posture Maturity Consulting for startups seeking Series A or B funding.
Third-Party Risk Management-as-a-Service as vendor scrutiny rises.
4. SWOT Analysis
Strengths
Weaknesses
Deep expertise in InfoSec & compliance
May lack scalability without automation
Custom vCISO engagements
High-touch model limits price elasticity
Opportunities
Threats
Demand surge in SMBs & startups
Commoditization by automated GRC tools
Cross-border compliance needs (e.g., UK GDPR + US laws)
The Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) certification encompasses eight domains that collectively form the (ISC)² Common Body of Knowledge (CBK). These domains provide a comprehensive framework for information security professionals. Below is a summarized overview of each domain:
What are the 8 CISSP domains?
CISSP domain
Current weighting (effective 1 May 2021)
Revised weighting (effective 15 April 2024)
1. Security and Risk Management
15%
16%
2. Asset Security
10%
10%
3. Security Architecture and Engineering
13%
13%
4. Communication and Network Security
13%
13%
5. Identity and Access Management (IAM)
13%
13%
6. Security Assessment and Testing
12%
12%
7. Security Operations
13%
13%
8. Software Development Security
11%
10%
We respectfully disagree with reducing the emphasis on Domain 8. In our view, it deserves equal importance alongside Domain 1.
This domain establishes the foundational principles of information security, including confidentiality, integrity, and availability. It covers governance, compliance, risk management, and professional ethics, ensuring that security strategies align with organizational goals and legal requirements.
2. Asset Security
Focusing on the protection of organizational assets, this domain addresses the classification, ownership, and handling of information and resources. It ensures that data is appropriately labeled, stored, and protected according to its sensitivity and value.
3. Security Architecture and Engineering
This domain delves into the design and implementation of secure systems. It encompasses security models, engineering processes, and the integration of security controls into hardware, software, and network architectures to mitigate vulnerabilities.
4. Communication and Network Security
Covering the secure design and management of network infrastructures, this domain includes topics such as secure communication channels, network protocols, and the protection of data in transit. It ensures the confidentiality and integrity of information exchanged across networks.
5. Identity and Access Management (IAM)
IAM focuses on the mechanisms that control user access to information systems. It includes identification, authentication, authorization, and accountability processes to ensure that only authorized individuals can access specific resources.
6. Security Assessment and Testing
This domain emphasizes the evaluation of security controls and processes. It involves conducting assessments, audits, and testing to identify vulnerabilities, ensure compliance, and validate the effectiveness of security measures.
7. Security Operations
Focusing on the day-to-day tasks necessary to maintain and monitor security, this domain includes incident response, disaster recovery, and the management of operational security controls. It ensures the continuous protection of information systems.
8. Software Development Security
This domain addresses the integration of security practices into the software development lifecycle. It covers secure coding principles, threat modeling, and the identification and mitigation of vulnerabilities in software applications.
Each domain plays a critical role in building a comprehensive understanding of information security, preparing professionals to effectively protect and manage organizational assets.
Custom Lambda – query internal risk register or control catalog.
4. System Prompt Example
You are a compliance assistant for the InfoSec GRC team.
You help answer questions about controls, risks, frameworks, and policy alignment.
Always cite your source if available. If unsure, respond with "I need more context."
💡 Sample User Prompts
“Map access control policies to NIST CSF.”
“What evidence do we have for control A.12.1.2?”
“List open compliance tasks from JIRA.”
“Summarize findings from the last SOC 2 audit.”
🧩 What It Does
The Bedrock Agent helps GRC teams and auditors by:
Answering ISO 27001 control questions
“What’s required for A.12.4.1 – Event logging?”
“Do we need an anti-malware policy for A.12.2.1?”
Mapping controls to internal policies or procedures
“Map A.13.2.1 to our remote access policy.”
Fetching evidence from internal systems
Via Lambda/API to JIRA, Confluence, or SharePoint.
Generating readiness assessments
Agent uses a questionnaire format to determine compliance status by engaging the user.
Creating audit-ready reports
Summarizes what controls are implemented, partially implemented, or missing.
🔗 Agent Architecture
Components:
Foundation Model: Claude 3 on Bedrock (contextual QA and reasoning)
Knowledge Base:
ISO 27001 control descriptions
Your org’s InfoSec policies (in S3)
Control mappings (CSV or JSON in S3)
Action Group / Lambda:
Integrate with ticketing (JIRA)
Evidence retrieval
Risk register querying
🗂️ Example Interaction
User: “What controls address vendor management in ISO 27001?”
A.15.1.1 requires information security policy for supplier relationships.
A.15.2.2 requires monitoring and review of supplier services.
Our ‘Third-Party Risk Management Policy’ maps to these controls. Would you like to see the last vendor assessment from JIRA?”
🧠 Bonus: Prompt for the Agent
You are an ISO 27001 compliance analyst. Your task is to help the GRC team interpret ISO controls, map them to our internal documents, and assist with evidence collection for audits. Be accurate and concise. If a control is not implemented, offer suggestions.
What are the benefits of using AI agent in GRC field
The use of AI agents in the Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) field can provide several benefits, including:
Automated Monitoring and Reporting: AI agents can continuously monitor various data sources, such as financial records, operational logs, and regulatory updates, to identify potential risks and compliance issues. This automated monitoring can help organizations stay up-to-date with changing regulations and promptly address any non-compliance or risk areas.
Risk Analysis and Prediction: AI algorithms can analyze vast amounts of data and identify patterns that may indicate potential risks. By leveraging machine learning techniques, AI agents can predict future risks based on historical data and current trends, enabling organizations to take proactive measures to mitigate or prevent those risks.
Compliance Management: AI agents can assist in interpreting and understanding complex regulatory requirements, ensuring that organizations remain compliant with relevant laws, regulations, and industry standards. They can also automate compliance processes, such as policy management, control testing, and reporting, reducing the risk of human error and increasing efficiency.
Fraud Detection: AI algorithms can analyze transaction data, user behavior, and other relevant information to identify anomalies or patterns that may indicate fraudulent activities. This can help organizations detect and respond to fraud more quickly, minimizing financial losses and reputational damage.
Continuous Improvement: AI agents can learn from the data they analyze and the actions taken by human experts, enabling them to continuously refine their models and improve their decision-making capabilities over time. This allows organizations to benefit from a constantly evolving and adapting GRC framework.
Scalability and Efficiency: AI agents can process and analyze large volumes of data much faster and more efficiently than humans, enabling organizations to scale their GRC efforts without significantly increasing costs or resources.
Centralized GRC Management: AI agents can provide a centralized platform for managing and integrating various GRC processes, enabling better collaboration, data sharing, and decision-making across different departments and functions within an organization.
While AI agents can provide significant benefits in the GRC field, it is important to note that they should be used in combination with human expertise and oversight. AI should not be viewed as a complete replacement for human decision-making but rather as a powerful tool to augment and enhance GRC processes.
What are the benefits of using AI agent in document management field
The use of AI agents in the document management field can provide several benefits, including:
Automated document classification and categorization: AI agents can analyze the content of documents and automatically classify them based on predefined rules or machine learning models, making it easier to organize and retrieve relevant information.
Intelligent search and retrieval: AI agents can improve search capabilities by understanding the context and semantics of documents, enabling more accurate and relevant search results.
Extraction of key information: AI agents can be trained to extract specific types of information from documents, such as dates, names, addresses, or key phrases, which can be useful for various business processes or analytics.
Data entry automation: AI agents can be employed to automatically extract data from documents and populate fields in databases or other systems, reducing the need for manual data entry and minimizing errors.
Intelligent document routing and workflow management: AI agents can analyze the content of documents and automatically route them to the appropriate individuals or departments based on predefined rules or workflows, streamlining business processes.
Compliance and risk management: AI agents can be trained to identify sensitive or confidential information in documents and apply appropriate access controls or redaction measures, helping organizations comply with regulations and mitigate risks.
Intelligent document summarization: AI agents can automatically generate summaries or abstracts of lengthy documents, saving time and effort for users who need to quickly understand the key points.
Automatic language translation: AI agents can translate documents from one language to another, facilitating cross-language communication and collaboration.
Improved user experience: AI agents can provide intelligent suggestions, contextual guidance, or virtual assistance to users, enhancing their experience with document management systems.
Overall, the integration of AI agents in document management can lead to increased efficiency, improved accuracy, better organization, enhanced security, and more effective utilization of information resources within an organization.
What are the benefits of using AI agent in merger and acquisition field
The use of AI agents in the merger and acquisition (M&A) field can provide several benefits, including:
Due diligence acceleration: AI agents can help streamline the due diligence process by rapidly analyzing large volumes of data, such as financial statements, contracts, and legal documents. This can help identify potential risks or opportunities more efficiently, saving time and resources.
Target identification: AI algorithms can be trained to identify potential acquisition targets based on specific criteria, such as financial performance, market positioning, and strategic fit. This can help companies identify attractive targets more effectively and make informed decisions.
Valuation analysis: AI agents can assist in valuing target companies by analyzing various financial and operational data points, as well as market trends and industry benchmarks. This can help companies make more accurate valuations and negotiate better deals.
Integration planning: AI can be used to analyze the compatibility of systems, processes, and cultures between the acquiring and target companies. This can help identify potential integration challenges and develop strategies to address them, facilitating a smoother transition after the merger or acquisition.
Synergy identification: AI algorithms can help identify potential synergies and cost-saving opportunities by analyzing data from both companies and identifying areas of overlap or complementarity. This can help maximize the value creation potential of the deal.
Regulatory compliance: AI agents can assist in ensuring compliance with relevant regulations and laws during the M&A process by analyzing legal documents, contracts, and other relevant data.
Predictive modeling: AI can be used to develop predictive models that estimate the potential outcomes and risks associated with a particular M&A transaction. This can help companies make more informed decisions and better manage risks.
It’s important to note that while AI agents can provide valuable insights and support, human expertise and decision-making remain crucial in the M&A process. AI should be used as a complementary tool to augment and enhance the capabilities of M&A professionals, rather than as a complete replacement.
The five pillars of information security form the foundation for designing and evaluating security policies, systems, and processes. In a world driven by AI, the pillars of information security remain essential…
1. Confidentiality
Definition: Ensuring that information is accessible only to those authorized to access it. Goal: Prevent unauthorized disclosure of data. Controls & Examples:
Encryption (e.g., AES for data at rest or TLS for data in transit)
Definition: Assuring the accuracy and completeness of data and system configurations. Goal: Prevent unauthorized modification or destruction of information. Controls & Examples:
Hashing (e.g., SHA-256 to verify file integrity)
Digital signatures
Audit logs
File integrity monitoring systems
3. Availability
Definition: Ensuring that information and systems are accessible to authorized users when needed. Goal: Minimize downtime and ensure reliable access to critical systems. Controls & Examples:
Redundant systems and failover clusters
Backup and disaster recovery plans
Denial-of-service (DoS) protection
Regular patching and maintenance
4. Authenticity
Definition: Verifying that users, systems, and data are genuine. Goal: Ensure that communications and data originate from a trusted source. Controls & Examples:
Digital certificates and Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
Two-factor authentication
Biometric verification
Secure protocols like SSH, HTTPS
5. Non-repudiation
Definition: Ensuring that a party in a communication cannot deny the authenticity of their signature or the sending of a message. Goal: Provide proof of origin and integrity to avoid disputes. Controls & Examples:
Digital signatures with timestamps
Immutable audit logs
Secure email with signing and logging
Blockchain-based verification in advanced systems
Together, these five pillars help protect the confidentiality, accuracy, reliability, authenticity, and accountability of information systems and are essential for any organization’s risk management strategy.
As AI systems become increasingly integrated into critical sectors such as finance, healthcare, and defense, their unpredictable and opaque behavior introduces significant risks to society. Traditional safety protocols may not be sufficient to manage the potential threats posed by highly advanced AI, especially those capable of causing existential harm. To address this, researchers propose Guillotine, a hypervisor-based architecture designed to securely sandbox powerful AI models.
Guillotine leverages established virtualization techniques but also introduces fundamentally new isolation strategies tailored for AI with existential-risk potential. Unlike typical software, such AI may attempt to analyze and subvert the very systems meant to contain them. This requires a deep co-design of hypervisor software with the underlying hardware—CPU, memory, network interfaces, and storage—to prevent side-channel leaks and eliminate avenues for reflective exploitation.
Beyond technical isolation, Guillotine incorporates physical fail-safes inspired by systems in nuclear power plants and aviation. These include hardware-level disconnection mechanisms and even radical approaches like data center flooding to forcibly shut down or destroy rogue AI. These physical controls offer a final layer of defense should digital barriers fail.
The underlying concern is that many current AI safety frameworks rely on policy rather than technical enforcement. As AI becomes more capable, it may learn to bypass or manipulate these soft controls. Guillotine directly confronts this problem by embedding enforcement into the architecture itself—creating systems that can’t be talked out of enforcing the rules.
In essence, Guillotine represents a shift from trust-based AI safety toward hardened, tamper-resistant infrastructure. It acknowledges that if AI is to be trusted with mission-critical roles—or if it poses existential threats—we must engineer control systems with the same rigor and physical safeguards used in other high-risk industries.
Coinbase‘s recent data breach, estimated to cost between $180 million and $400 million, wasn’t caused by a technological failure, but rather by a sophisticated social engineering attack. Cybercriminals bribed offshore support agents to obtain sensitive customer data, including personally identifiable information (PII), government IDs, bank details, and account information.
This highlights a critical breakdown in Coinbase‘s internal security, specifically in access control and oversight of its contractors. No cryptocurrency was stolen directly, but the exposure of such sensitive data poses significant risks to affected customers, including identity theft and financial fraud. The financial repercussions for Coinbase are substantial, encompassing remediation costs and customer reimbursements. The incident raises serious questions about the security practices within the cryptocurrency industry and whether the term “innovation” appropriately describes practices that expose users to such significant risks.
Impact and Fallout
While no cryptocurrency was stolen, the breach exposed sensitive customer information, such as names, bank account numbers, and routing numbers . This exposure poses risks of identity theft and fraud. Coinbase has estimated potential costs for cleanup and customer reimbursements to be between $180 million and $400 million. The breach has also led to increased regulatory scrutiny and potential legal challenges .
Broader Implications
This incident highlights a critical issue in the crypto industry: the reliance on human factors and inadequate security training. Despite advanced technological safeguards, human error remains a significant vulnerability. The breach was not due to a failure in technology but rather a breakdown in trust, access control, and oversight. It raises questions about the industry’s approach to security and whether current practices are sufficient to protect users .
Moving Forward
The Coinbase breach serves as a wake-up call for the crypto industry to reevaluate its security protocols, particularly concerning employee training and access controls. It underscores the need for robust security measures that address not only technological vulnerabilities but also human factors. As the industry continues to evolve, prioritizing comprehensive security strategies will be essential to maintain user trust and ensure the integrity of crypto platforms.
The scale of the breach and its potential long-term consequences for customers and the reputation of Coinbase are considerable, prompting discussions about necessary improvements in security protocols and regulatory oversight within the cryptocurrency space.
Here are some countermeasures to prevent similar incidents from happening again.
To prevent future breaches like the recent Coinbase incident, a multi-pronged approach is necessary, focusing on both technological and human factors. Here’s a breakdown of potential countermeasures:
Enhanced Security Measures:
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): Implement robust MFA across all systems and accounts, making it mandatory for all employees and contractors. This adds an extra layer of security, making it significantly harder for unauthorized individuals to access accounts, even if they obtain credentials.
Zero Trust Security Model: Adopt a zero-trust architecture, assuming no user or device is inherently trustworthy. This involves verifying every access request, regardless of origin, using continuous authentication and authorization mechanisms.
Regular Security Audits and Penetration Testing: Conduct frequent and thorough security audits and penetration testing to identify and address vulnerabilities before malicious actors can exploit them. These assessments should cover all systems, applications, and infrastructure components.
Employee Training and Awareness Programs: Implement comprehensive security awareness training programs for all employees and contractors. This should cover topics like phishing scams, social engineering tactics, and safe password practices. Regular refresher courses are essential to maintain vigilance.
Access Control and Privileged Access Management (PAM): Implement strict access control policies, limiting access to sensitive data and systems based on the principle of least privilege. Use PAM solutions to manage and monitor privileged accounts, ensuring that only authorized personnel can access critical systems.
Data Loss Prevention (DLP): Deploy DLP tools to monitor and prevent sensitive data from leaving the organization’s control. This includes monitoring data transfers, email communications, and cloud storage access.
Blockchain-Based Security Solutions: Explore the use of blockchain technology to enhance security. This could involve using blockchain for identity verification, secure data storage, and tamper-proof audit trails.
Threat Intelligence and Monitoring: Leverage threat intelligence feeds and security information and event management (SIEM) systems to proactively identify and respond to potential threats. This allows for early detection of suspicious activity and enables timely intervention.
Improved Contractor Management:
Background Checks and Vetting: Conduct thorough background checks and vetting processes for all contractors, particularly those with access to sensitive data. This should include verifying their identity, credentials, and past employment history.
Contractual Obligations: Clearly define security responsibilities and liabilities in contracts with contractors. Include clauses outlining penalties for data breaches and non-compliance with security policies.
Regular Monitoring and Oversight: Implement robust monitoring and oversight mechanisms to track contractor activity and ensure compliance with security protocols. This could involve regular audits, access reviews, and performance evaluations.
Secure Communication Channels: Ensure that all communication with contractors is conducted through secure channels, such as encrypted email and messaging systems.
Regulatory Compliance:
Adherence to Data Protection Regulations: Strictly adhere to relevant data protection regulations, such as GDPR and CCPA, to ensure compliance with legal requirements and protect customer data.
By implementing these countermeasures, organizations can significantly reduce their risk of experiencing similar breaches and protect sensitive customer data.
Managing AI Risks: A Strategic Imperative – responsibility and disruption must coexist
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming sectors across the board—from healthcare and finance to manufacturing and logistics. While its potential to drive innovation and efficiency is clear, AI also introduces complex risks that can impact fairness, transparency, security, and compliance. To ensure these technologies are used responsibly, organizations must implement structured governance mechanisms to manage AI-related risks proactively.
Understanding the Key Risks
Unchecked AI systems can lead to serious problems. Biases embedded in training data can produce discriminatory outcomes. Many models function as opaque “black boxes,” making their decisions difficult to explain or audit. Security threats like adversarial attacks and data poisoning also pose real dangers. Additionally, with evolving regulations like the EU AI Act, non-compliance could result in significant penalties and reputational harm. Perhaps most critically, failure to demonstrate transparency and accountability can erode public trust, undermining long-term adoption and success.
ISO/IEC 42001: A Framework for Responsible AI
To address these challenges, ISO/IEC 42001—the first international AI management system standard—offers a structured, auditable framework. Published in 2023, it helps organizations govern AI responsibly, much like ISO 27001 does for information security. It supports a risk-based approach that accounts for ethical, legal, and societal expectations.
Key Components of ISO/IEC 42001
Contextual Risk Assessment: Tailors risk management to the organization’s specific environment, mission, and stakeholders.
Defined Governance Roles: Assigns clear responsibilities for managing AI systems.
Life Cycle Risk Management: Addresses AI risks across development, deployment, and ongoing monitoring.
Ethics and Transparency: Encourages fairness, explainability, and human oversight.
Continuous Improvement: Promotes regular reviews and updates to stay aligned with technological and regulatory changes.
Benefits of Certification
Pursuing ISO 42001 certification helps organizations preempt security, operational, and legal risks. It also enhances credibility with customers, partners, and regulators by demonstrating a commitment to responsible AI. Moreover, as regulations tighten, ISO 42001 provides a compliance-ready foundation. The standard is scalable, making it practical for both startups and large enterprises, and it can offer a competitive edge during audits, procurement processes, and stakeholder evaluations.
Practical Steps to Get Started
To begin implementing ISO 42001:
Inventory your existing AI systems and assess their risk profiles.
Identify governance and policy gaps against the standard’s requirements.
Develop policies focused on fairness, transparency, and accountability.
Train teams on responsible AI practices and ethical considerations.
Final Recommendation
AI is no longer optional—it’s embedded in modern business. But its power demands responsibility. Adopting ISO/IEC 42001 enables organizations to build AI systems that are secure, ethical, and aligned with regulatory expectations. Managing AI risk effectively isn’t just about compliance—it’s about building systems people can trust.
Planning AI compliance within the next 12–24 months reflects:
The time needed to inventory AI use, assess risk, and integrate policies
The emerging maturity of frameworks like ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, and others
The expectation that vendors will demand AI assurance from partners by 2026
Companies not planning to do anything (the 6%) are likely in less regulated sectors or unaware of the pace of change. But even that 6% will feel pressure from insurers, regulators, and B2B customers.
Here are the Top 7 GenAI Security Practices that organizations should adopt to protect their data, users, and reputation when deploying generative AI tools:
1. Data Input Sanitization
Why: Prevent leakage of sensitive or confidential data into prompts.
How: Strip personally identifiable information (PII), secrets, and proprietary info before sending input to GenAI models.
2. Model Output Filtering
Why: Avoid toxic, biased, or misleading content from being released to end users.
How: Use automated post-processing filters and human review where necessary to validate output.
3. Access Controls & Authentication
Why: Prevent unauthorized use of GenAI systems, especially those integrated with sensitive internal data.
How: Enforce least privilege access, strong authentication (MFA), and audit logs for traceability.
4. Prompt Injection Defense
Why: Attackers can manipulate model behavior through cleverly crafted prompts.
How: Sanitize user input, use system-level guardrails, and test for injection vulnerabilities during development.
5. Data Provenance & Logging
Why: Maintain accountability for both input and output for auditing, compliance, and incident response.
How: Log inputs, model configurations, and outputs with timestamps and user attribution.
6. Secure Model Hosting & APIs
Why: Prevent model theft, abuse, or tampering via insecure infrastructure.
How: Use secure APIs (HTTPS, rate limiting), encrypt models at rest/in transit, and monitor for anomalies.
7. Regular Testing and Red-Teaming
Why: Proactively identify weaknesses before adversaries exploit them.
How: Conduct adversarial testing, red-teaming exercises, and use third-party GenAI security assessment tools.
DISC’s guide on implementing ISO 27001 using generative AI highlights how AI technologies can streamline the establishment and maintenance of an Information Security Management System (ISMS). By leveraging AI tools, organizations can automate various aspects of the ISO 27001 implementation process, enhancing efficiency and accuracy.
AI-powered platforms like DISC InfoSec ISO27k Chatbot serve as intelligent knowledge bases, providing instant answers to queries related to ISO 27001 requirements, control implementations, and documentation. These tools assist in drafting necessary documents such as the Risk assessment and Statement of Applicability, and offer guidance on implementing Annex A controls. Additionally, AI can may facilitate training and awareness programs by generating tailored educational materials, ensuring that all employees are informed about information security practices.
The integration of AI into ISO 27001 implementation not only accelerates the process but also reduces the likelihood of errors, ensuring a more robust and compliant ISMS. By automating routine tasks and providing expert guidance, AI enables organizations to focus on strategic decision-making and continuous improvement in their information security management.
Hey I’m the digital assistance of DISC InfoSec for ISO 27k implementation.
I will try to answer your question. If I don’t know the answer, I will connect you with one my support agents.
Please click the link below to type your query regarding ISO 27001 (ISMS) implementation
Continual improvement doesn’t necessarily entail significant expenses. Many enhancements can be achieved through regular internal audits, management reviews, and staff engagement. By fostering a culture of continuous improvement, organizations can maintain an ISMS that effectively addresses current and emerging information security risks, ensuring resilience and compliance with ISO 27001 standards.
At DISC InfoSec, we streamline the entire process—guiding you confidently through complex frameworks such as ISO 27001, and SOC 2.
Here’s how we help:
Conduct gap assessments to identify compliance challenges and control maturity
Deliver straightforward, practical steps for remediation with assigned responsibility
Ensure ongoing guidance to support continued compliance with standard
Confirm your security posture through risk assessments and penetration testing
Let’s set up a quick call to explore how we can make your cybersecurity compliance process easier.
ISO 27001 certification validates that your ISMS meets recognized security standards and builds trust with customers by demonstrating a strong commitment to protecting information.
Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions about the ISO 27001 Internal audit or certification process.
Successfully completing your ISO 27001 audit confirms that your Information Security Management System (ISMS) meets the required standards and assures your customers of your commitment to security.
Get in touch with us to begin your ISO 27001 audit today.
1. Understanding Objective-Based Penetration Testing Objective-based penetration testing focuses on assessing an organization’s security by simulating real-world attack scenarios with specific goals in mind. Unlike traditional methods that might broadly scan for vulnerabilities, this approach targets particular objectives, such as accessing sensitive data or compromising critical systems, providing a more realistic evaluation of security posture.
2. The Importance of Realistic Threat Simulation By emulating tactics used by actual threat actors, objective-based tests reveal how well an organization’s defenses can withstand targeted attacks. This method uncovers not just technical vulnerabilities but also weaknesses in processes and human factors, offering a comprehensive view of potential security gaps.
3. Enhancing Incident Response Preparedness These targeted assessments help organizations evaluate and improve their incident response strategies. By observing how teams react to simulated breaches, companies can identify deficiencies in their response plans and training, leading to more effective real-world reactions to security incidents.
4. Aligning Security Measures with Business Objectives Objective-based testing ensures that security evaluations are aligned with the organization’s specific goals and risk appetite. This alignment allows for more relevant and actionable insights, enabling businesses to prioritize security investments that protect their most critical assets.
5. Identifying Hidden Vulnerabilities This approach is particularly effective at uncovering complex vulnerabilities that might be missed by standard testing methods. By focusing on achieving specific objectives, testers can identify intricate attack paths and chained exploits that pose significant risks.
6. Supporting Compliance and Regulatory Requirements Objective-based penetration testing can aid in meeting various compliance standards by demonstrating a proactive approach to identifying and mitigating security risks. It provides documented evidence of security assessments tailored to the organization’s unique environment and threats.
7. Strengthening Overall Security Posture By adopting objective-based penetration testing, organizations can gain deeper insights into their security strengths and weaknesses. This knowledge enables them to implement targeted improvements, enhance their resilience against cyber threats, and better protect their critical assets.
They’re the quiet ones—the ones that will silently gut your continuity strategy while leadership watches the wrong fire.
1️⃣ Shadow SaaS Is Out of Control Business units are adopting tools without IT oversight—no security, no backups, no DR. It works… until it doesn’t. Then it becomes your problem.
2️⃣ RTOs Are Fiction, Not Strategy “30 hours” looks good—until the CEO demands answers three hours in. If your recovery needs a miracle, it’s not a plan. It’s a pending failure.
3️⃣ Resilience Theater Is Everywhere Policies? Written. Boxes? Checked. But when the real incident hits, no one knows what to do. You’ve got documentation, not readiness.
4️⃣ Hidden Dependencies Will Break You APIs, scripts, microservices—no SLAs, no visibility, no accountability. They fail quietly. Business halts. And no one saw it coming.
5️⃣ Continuity Teams Have Quiet Quit Resilience professionals are exhausted, underfunded, and unheard. Their silence isn’t safety—it’s burnout. And it’s dangerous.
🔶 Resilience doesn’t fail loudly. It erodes quietly. CISOs and leadership teams: It’s time to stop watching the wrong fire.
Coming off the back of RSA and I’m a little disheartened by some of the posts I’m seeing from startup founders about the countless meetings they’ve had with CISOs representing the fortune 500.
I get it. Landing an f500 customer does wonders for your brand, growth, funding, etc. But you do realize there is life beyond the f500 right? Or does your arrogance prevent you from acknowledging the thousands of companies, and CISOs within, who don’t have a glamour brand attached to their name?
If anything, those companies and CISOs are the ones who need you most. They are the ones operating with tight budgets, small teams, less resources, and huge levels of vulnerability. They need partners, and are turning to the startup ecosystem more and more in the hope of finding innovative tools that reduce their need for resources, and who cares more about building a long relationship vs a transaction.
Not taking anything away from the vendors whose products are attractive to the biggest brands on the planet. And certainly not taking anything away from the CISOs in f500 companies. But don’t neglect the greater CISO community. Treat everyone the same. Because once you’ve depleted your f500 targets, these are the CISOs you will turn to for continued growth.
Getting a “yes” from a Fortune 500 may sound like a dream for a startup—but it can quickly become a curse. Long contract negotiations, increased insurance requirements, premature scaling, and the need to support complex legacy environments can drain your team and resources. You’ll face challenges you weren’t prepared for and may alienate smaller customers who don’t relate to enterprise-scale use cases.
Current Requirement in ISO 27001 ISO 27001 currently mandates that the SoA must include justifications for both the inclusion and exclusion of each Annex A control. This requirement is often interpreted to mean that organizations must provide individual reasoning for every control listed or omitted.
Guidance from ISO 27005:2022 ISO 27005:2022 clarifies that only controls identified through risk assessment and treatment planning should be included in the SoA. These controls are selected because they help reduce risk to acceptable levels. The guidance explicitly states that no further justification is necessary for their inclusion.
Exclusion Justification Also Redundant By extension, the only valid reason for excluding a control is that it was not identified as necessary in the risk treatment plan. If a control does not mitigate any identified risk, there is no need for it to appear in the SoA, and thus, no detailed justification is required.
Controls Must Be Risk-Driven Controls exist to manage or modify risks. Including or excluding them must be directly based on whether they are necessary for risk treatment. Requiring extra justification, separate from the risk assessment, is logically inconsistent with the function of controls within an ISMS.
Recommendation to Remove the Justification Requirement Given this risk-based logic, the recommendation is to eliminate the need for detailed justifications of inclusions or exclusions in the SoA. This requirement appears to be an error or legacy clause in ISO 27001 that contradicts more recent guidance.
Alignment with ISO 27005 and Future ISO 27003 This position aligns with ISO 27005:2022, which supports a simplified, risk-driven approach to the SoA. It is anticipated that the upcoming ISO 27003 update will reinforce this same guidance, helping to resolve the inconsistency across standards.
Practical Experience Supports the Change Despite popular belief, individualized justifications are not essential. The author has implemented many ISO 27001-certified ISMSs over the past decade without providing such justifications—and all achieved certification successfully.
Simplified SOA Approach Recommended The SOA should only list necessary controls derived from the risk assessment, with no additional rationale needed for inclusion or exclusion. Controls not identified as necessary should simply not be listed, and the SOA should remain tightly aligned with the risk treatment plan.
Continual improvement doesn’t necessarily entail significant expenses. Many enhancements can be achieved through regular internal audits, management reviews, and staff engagement. By fostering a culture of continuous improvement, organizations can maintain an ISMS that effectively addresses current and emerging information security risks, ensuring resilience and compliance with ISO 27001 standards.
At DISC InfoSec, we streamline the entire process—guiding you confidently through complex frameworks such as ISO 27001, and SOC 2.
Here’s how we help:
Conduct gap assessments to identify compliance challenges and control maturity
Deliver straightforward, practical steps for remediation with assigned responsibility
Ensure ongoing guidance to support continued compliance with standard
Confirm your security posture through risk assessments and penetration testing
Let’s set up a quick call to explore how we can make your cybersecurity compliance process easier.
ISO 27001 certification validates that your ISMS meets recognized security standards and builds trust with customers by demonstrating a strong commitment to protecting information.
Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions about the ISO 27001 Internal audit or certification process.
Successfully completing your ISO 27001 audit confirms that your Information Security Management System (ISMS) meets the required standards and assures your customers of your commitment to security.
Get in touch with us to begin your ISO 27001 audit today.
ISO 27001 is an internationally recognized standard for establishing an Information Security Management System (ISMS) that protects an organization’s information assets. The standard lays out a structured, systematic approach to information security: it explicitly defines requirements that cover people, processes, and technology, and it is built on a risk-based management process. In other words, ISO 27001 requires an organization to identify its critical data and assets, assess the risks to them, and implement controls to mitigate those risks. As the AuditBoard blog explains, ISO 27001 “provid[es] a systematic approach to managing sensitive company information, and ensuring its confidentiality, integrity, and availability,” and “employ[s] a risk-based management process”. By achieving ISO 27001 certification, a company demonstrates its commitment to security best practices and gains “improved risk management” capabilities. In practice, this means ISO 27001 embeds risk reduction into the company’s daily operations: the organization is continually considering where its vulnerabilities lie and how to address them. This alignment of policy and process with identified risks helps prevent incidents that could lead to breaches or financial losses (outcomes the blog warns are costly for non-compliant companies).
A core principle of ISO 27001 is systematic risk assessment. The standard mandates that organizations catalog information assets and regularly evaluate threats and vulnerabilities to those assets. This formal risk assessment process – often codified as a risk register – forces management to confront what could go wrong, estimate the likelihood and impact of each threat, and then select controls to lower that risk. The AuditBoard article highlights that effective compliance “starts with a deep understanding of your organization’s unique risk profile” through “comprehensive risk assessments that identify, analyze, and prioritize potential security threats and vulnerabilities”. By building this into the ISMS, ISO 27001 ensures that controls are not applied haphazardly but are directly tied to the organization’s actual threat landscape. In short, ISO 27001’s risk-based approach means the organization is proactively scanning for problems, rather than only reacting after a breach occurs. This systematic identification and treatment of risks measurably lowers the chance that a threat will go unnoticed and turn into a serious incident.
Another key principle of ISO 27001 is continual improvement of the security program. ISO 27001 is inherently iterative: it follows the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle, which requires the organization to plan security controls, implement them, monitor and review their effectiveness, and act on the findings to improve. In practice, this means an ISO 27001–certified organization must regularly review and update its security policies and controls to keep pace with new threats. The AuditBoard blog emphasizes this proactive stance: it notes that maintaining compliance “encourages businesses to regularly review and update their security policies, practices, and systems,” allowing the organization to adapt to evolving threats and maintain “long-term resilience”. Furthermore, ISO 27001 requires ongoing monitoring and measurement of the ISMS. Automated monitoring tools, for example, can detect anomalies or intrusions in real time. The blog underlines that such continuous monitoring “strengthens an organization’s security posture” by enabling a quick response to new risks. By continuously detecting issues and feeding back lessons learned, an ISO 27001 ISMS avoids stagnation: it evolves as the threat landscape evolves. This dedication to continual assessment and enhancement means that security controls are always improving, which keeps residual risk as low as possible over time.
ISO 27001 also enforces organizational accountability for security. It requires that top management be directly involved in the ISMS: leaders must establish a clear security policy, assign roles and responsibilities, and ensure adequate resources are available for security. Every risk and control must have an owner. The AuditBoard article reinforces this by stressing the importance of a cross-functional security team and collaboration among IT, legal, HR, and business units. In an ISO 27001 context, this means everyone from the CISO to line managers shares responsibility for protecting data. Accountability is further ensured through documentation: ISO 27001 demands thorough records of all security processes. The blog points out that maintaining “comprehensive records of risk assessments, security controls, training activities, and incident response efforts” provides clear evidence of compliance and highlights where improvements are needed. This audit trail makes the organization’s security posture transparent to auditors and stakeholders. In effect, ISO 27001 turns vague good intentions into concrete, assigned tasks and documented procedures, so that it is always possible to trace who did what, and to hold the organization accountable for gaps or successes alike.
By combining these elements – structured risk analysis, continuous improvement, and built-in accountability – ISO 27001 compliance significantly reduces overall organizational risk. The AuditBoard blog summarizes the core idea of compliance in cybersecurity as a security framework that can withstand emerging threats, noting that adherence to standards “ensures that organizations protect their data and build trust by demonstrating their commitment to information security”. In practical terms, this means a company with an ISO 27001 ISMS is far better equipped to prevent the “significant consequences” of non-compliance – such as data breaches, financial losses, and reputational damage. By embedding a risk-based approach into daily routines and maintaining a culture of vigilance and responsibility, ISO 27001 helps an organization identify issues early and handle them before they become disasters. Ultimately, this strong, systematic compliance posture not only shields sensitive information, but also saves the company from costly incidents – improving its bottom line and competitive standing (as noted, certification can confer a competitive edge and “improved risk management”). In summary, ISO 27001 reduces risk by making effective information security practices a formal, organization-wide process that is continuously managed and improved.
Continual improvement doesn’t necessarily entail significant expenses. Many enhancements can be achieved through regular internal audits, management reviews, and staff engagement. By fostering a culture of continuous improvement, organizations can maintain an ISMS that effectively addresses current and emerging information security risks, ensuring resilience and compliance with ISO 27001 standards.
At DISC InfoSec, we streamline the entire process—guiding you confidently through complex frameworks such as ISO 27001, and SOC 2.
Here’s how we help:
Conduct gap assessments to identify compliance challenges and control maturity
Deliver straightforward, practical steps for remediation with assigned responsibility
Ensure ongoing guidance to support continued compliance with standard
Confirm your security posture through risk assessments and penetration testing
Let’s set up a quick call to explore how we can make your cybersecurity compliance process easier.
Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions about the ISO 27001 Internal audit or certification process.
Successfully completing your ISO 27001 audit confirms that your Information Security Management System (ISMS) meets the required standards and assures your customers of your commitment to security.
Get in touch with us to begin your ISO 27001 audit today.
The RSA Conference Executive Security Action Forum (ESAF) report, How Top CISOs Are Transforming Third-Party Risk Management, presents insights from Fortune 1000 Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) on evolving strategies to manage third-party cyber risks. The report underscores the inadequacy of traditional risk management approaches and highlights innovative practices adopted by leading organizations.
1. Escalating Third-Party Risks
The report begins by emphasizing the increasing threat posed by third-party relationships. A survey revealed that 87% of Fortune 1000 companies experienced significant cyber incidents originating from third parties within a year. This statistic underscores the urgency for organizations to reassess their third-party risk management strategies.
2. Limitations of Traditional Approaches
Traditional methods, such as self-assessment questionnaires and cybersecurity ratings, are criticized for their ineffectiveness. These approaches often lack context, fail to reduce actual risk, and do not foster resilience against cyber threats. The report advocates for a shift towards more proactive and context-aware strategies.
3. Innovative Strategies by Leading CISOs
In response to these challenges, top CISOs are implementing bold new approaches. These include establishing prioritized security requirements, setting clear deadlines for control implementations, incorporating enforcement clauses in contracts, and assisting third parties in acquiring necessary security technologies and services. Such measures aim to enhance the overall security posture of both the organization and its partners.
4. Emphasizing Business Leadership and Resilience
The report highlights the importance of involving business leaders in managing cyber risks. By integrating cybersecurity considerations into business decisions and fostering a culture of resilience, organizations can better prepare for and respond to third-party incidents. This holistic approach ensures that cybersecurity is not siloed but is a shared responsibility across the enterprise.
5. Case Studies Demonstrating Effective Practices
Six cross-sector case studies are presented, showcasing how organizations in industries like defense, healthcare, insurance, manufacturing, and technology are successfully transforming their third-party risk management. These real-world examples provide valuable insights into the practical application of the recommended strategies and their positive outcomes.
6. The Role of Technology and Security Vendors
The report calls upon technology and security vendors to play a pivotal role in minimizing complexities and reducing costs associated with third-party risk management. By collaborating with organizations, vendors can develop solutions that are more aligned with the evolving cybersecurity landscape and the specific needs of businesses.
7. Industry Collaboration for Systemic Change
Recognizing that third-party risk is a widespread issue, the report advocates for industry-wide collaboration. Establishing common standards, sharing best practices, and engaging in joint initiatives can lead to systemic changes that enhance the security of the broader ecosystem. Such collective efforts are essential for addressing the complexities of modern cyber threats.
8. Moving Forward with Proactive Measures
The ESAF report concludes by encouraging organizations to adopt proactive measures in managing third-party risks. By moving beyond traditional methods and embracing innovative, collaborative, and resilient strategies, businesses can better safeguard themselves against the evolving threat landscape. The insights provided serve as a roadmap for organizations aiming to strengthen their cybersecurity frameworks in partnership with their third parties.
Ben Rothke’s review of Inside Cyber Warfare: Mapping the Cyber Underworld by Jeffrey Carr offers a sobering examination of the modern landscape of cyber conflict. The book delves into the evolving nature of cyber threats, highlighting how state-sponsored actors and criminal organizations exploit digital vulnerabilities to achieve their objectives. Carr’s analysis underscores the complexity and pervasiveness of cyber warfare in today’s interconnected world.
Carr emphasizes that cyber warfare is not confined to isolated incidents but is a continuous and multifaceted threat. He illustrates how nations leverage cyber capabilities for espionage, sabotage, and influence operations. The book provides detailed accounts of various cyber attacks, shedding light on the tactics and motivations behind them. Carr’s insights reveal the strategic importance of cyber operations in modern geopolitical conflicts.
One of the critical themes in Carr’s work is the attribution challenge in cyber attacks. Determining the origin of an attack is often fraught with uncertainty, complicating responses and accountability. Carr discusses the implications of this ambiguity, particularly in the context of international law and norms. The difficulty in attributing attacks hampers efforts to deter malicious actors and enforce consequences.
Carr also explores the role of non-state actors in cyber warfare. He examines how terrorist groups, hacktivists, and criminal syndicates exploit cyberspace for their agendas. The book delves into the methods these groups use, from defacing websites to orchestrating complex cyber heists. Carr’s analysis highlights the democratization of cyber capabilities and the resulting proliferation of threats.
The book doesn’t shy away from discussing the vulnerabilities within critical infrastructure. Carr outlines how essential services like power grids, water supplies, and transportation systems are susceptible to cyber attacks. He stresses the potential for catastrophic consequences if these systems are compromised, urging for robust security measures and contingency planning.
Carr’s narrative also touches on the psychological and societal impacts of cyber warfare. He examines how disinformation campaigns and cyber propaganda can erode public trust and destabilize societies. The book provides examples of how such tactics have been employed to influence elections and sow discord, emphasizing the need for resilience against information warfare.
In conclusion, Inside Cyber Warfare serves as a comprehensive guide to understanding the complexities of cyber conflict. Carr’s work is a call to action for policymakers, security professionals, and the public to recognize the gravity of cyber threats. The book advocates for international cooperation, robust cybersecurity frameworks, and public awareness to mitigate the risks posed by cyber warfare.
RSA 2025 spotlighted 10 innovative cybersecurity tools, including AI-driven email threat detection, phishing simulation agents, and autonomous security workflows. Vendors focused on securing AI models, improving visibility into non-human identities, and protecting APIs and AI agents from abuse. Tools for crowdsourced red teaming, binary-level vulnerability analysis, and real-time software architecture mapping also featured prominently. The trend is clear: automation, identity governance, and proactive threat exposure are front and center in the next generation of cybersecurity solutions.
Here’s a concise summary of CRN’s article on hot tools announced at RSA 2025:
1. AI in Security Operations Palo Alto Networks and CrowdStrike showcased advanced AI tools. Palo Alto’s Cortex XSIAM 3.0 introduced smarter email threat detection and noise-reducing vulnerability management. CrowdStrike launched agentic AI tools for automated security responses and workflow generation.
2. Smarter Phishing and Data Analysis Abnormal AI introduced two autonomous agents — one for personalized phishing training and another for digesting security data into actionable insights, streamlining analysis for cybersecurity teams.
3. Safe AI Model Training and Governance Netskope enhanced its DSPM with features to prevent sensitive data from being used in LLM training, along with improved AI policy enforcement and risk assessments.
4. Identity and Threat Detection Innovations Huntress expanded its Managed ITDR to tackle rogue apps and shadow workflows. Silverfort boosted non-human identity protections across cloud services, offering unified identity visibility.
5. New Approaches to Red Teaming and API Security Bugcrowd launched crowdsourced red teaming for real-world attack simulation. Wallarm introduced protection for AI agents themselves, guarding against prompt injection and other AI-specific threats.
6. Supply Chain and Application Insights NetRise’s ZeroLens tool detects undisclosed software flaws through binary analysis. Apiiro offered a visual graph tool for real-time understanding of software architecture and risk exposure.
The document “Step-by-Step Explanation of ISO 27001/ISO 27005 Risk Management” by Advisera Expert Solutions offers a comprehensive guide to implementing effective information security risk management in alignment with ISO 27001 and ISO 27005 standards. It aims to demystify the process, providing practical steps for organizations to identify, assess, and treat information security risks efficiently. Advisera
1. Introduction to Risk Management
Risk management is essential for organizations to maintain competitiveness and achieve objectives. It involves identifying, evaluating, and treating risks, particularly those related to information security. The document emphasizes that while risk management can be complex, it doesn’t have to be unnecessarily complicated. By adopting structured methodologies, organizations can manage risks effectively without excessive complexity.
2. Six Basic Steps of ISO 27001 Risk Assessment and Treatment
The risk management process is broken down into six fundamental steps:
Risk Assessment Methodology: Establishing consistent rules for conducting risk assessments across the organization.
Risk Assessment Implementation: Identifying potential problems, analyzing, and evaluating risks to determine which need treatment.
Risk Treatment Implementation: Developing cost-effective strategies to mitigate identified risks.
ISMS Risk Assessment Report: Documenting all activities undertaken during the risk assessment process.
Statement of Applicability: Summarizing the results of risk treatment and serving as a key document for auditors.
Risk Treatment Plan: Outlining the implementation of controls, including responsibilities, timelines, and budgets.
Management approval is crucial for the Risk Treatment Plan to ensure the necessary resources and commitment for implementation.
3. Crafting the Risk Assessment Methodology
Developing a clear risk assessment methodology is vital. This involves defining how risks will be identified, analyzed, and evaluated. The methodology should ensure consistency and objectivity, allowing for repeatable and comparable assessments. It should also align with the organization’s context, considering its specific needs and risk appetite.
4. Identifying Risks: Assets, Threats, and Vulnerabilities
Effective risk identification requires understanding the organization’s assets, potential threats, and vulnerabilities. This step involves creating an inventory of information assets and analyzing how they could be compromised. By mapping threats and vulnerabilities to assets, organizations can pinpoint specific risks that need to be addressed.
5. Assessing Consequences and Likelihood
Once risks are identified, assessing their potential impact and the likelihood of occurrence is essential. This evaluation helps prioritize risks based on their severity and probability, guiding the organization in focusing its resources on the most significant threats. Both qualitative and quantitative methods can be employed to assess risks effectively.
6. Implementing Risk Treatment Strategies
After assessing risks, organizations must decide on appropriate treatment strategies. Options include avoiding, transferring, mitigating, or accepting risks. Selecting suitable controls from ISO 27001 Annex A and integrating them into the Risk Treatment Plan ensures that identified risks are managed appropriately. The plan should detail the implementation process, including responsible parties and timelines.
7. Importance of Documentation and Continuous Improvement
Documentation plays a critical role in the risk management process. The ISMS Risk Assessment Report and Statement of Applicability provide evidence of the organization’s risk management activities and decisions. These documents are essential for audits and ongoing monitoring. Furthermore, risk management should be a continuous process, with regular reviews and updates to adapt to changing threats and organizational contexts.
By following these structured steps, organizations can establish a robust risk management framework that aligns with ISO 27001 and ISO 27005 standards, enhancing their information security posture and resilience.
Continual improvement doesn’t necessarily entail significant expenses. Many enhancements can be achieved through regular internal audits, management reviews, and staff engagement. By fostering a culture of continuous improvement, organizations can maintain an ISMS that effectively addresses current and emerging information security risks, ensuring resilience and compliance with ISO 27001 standards.
At DISC InfoSec, we streamline the entire process—guiding you confidently through complex frameworks such as ISO 27001, and SOC 2.
Here’s how we help:
Conduct gap assessments to identify compliance challenges and control maturity
Deliver straightforward, practical steps for remediation with assigned responsibility
Ensure ongoing guidance to support continued compliance with standard
Confirm your security posture through risk assessments and penetration testing
Let’s set up a quick call to explore how we can make your cybersecurity compliance process easier.
Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions about the ISO 27001 Internal audit or certification process.
Successfully completing your ISO 27001 audit confirms that your Information Security Management System (ISMS) meets the required standards and assures your customers of your commitment to security.
Get in touch with us to begin your ISO 27001 audit today.
A recent revelation by security researcher Nick Johnson highlights a sophisticated phishing technique that exploits Google’s own services—specifically OAuth and Google Sites—to send DKIM-signed phishing emails that appear entirely legitimate. This method allows attackers to craft emails that seem to originate from “no-reply@google.com,” effectively bypassing traditional email security measures and deceiving recipients into divulging sensitive information.
The attack begins with the creation of a malicious Google OAuth application. Attackers manipulate the app’s name field to include deceptive messages, such as fake security alerts, by inserting numerous spaces or line breaks to obscure the true nature of the content. This crafted app name then autofills into legitimate-looking emails sent by Google, lending an air of authenticity to the phishing attempt.
Subsequently, the attackers leverage Google Sites to host convincing phishing pages that mimic official Google interfaces. These pages are designed to harvest user credentials under the guise of legitimate Google services. Because the emails are sent through Google’s infrastructure and are DKIM-signed, they often evade spam filters and other security checks, making them particularly dangerous.
This method is especially concerning because it exploits the inherent trust users place in Google’s services. By utilizing Google’s own platforms to disseminate phishing emails and host malicious content, attackers can effectively bypass many of the safeguards that users and organizations rely on to protect against such threats.
The implications of this technique are far-reaching. It underscores the need for heightened vigilance and more robust security measures, as traditional defenses like DKIM and SPF may not be sufficient to detect and block such sophisticated attacks. Organizations must recognize that even trusted platforms can be manipulated to serve malicious purposes.
To counteract these threats, several measures can be implemented:
User Education: Regular training to help users recognize phishing attempts, even those that appear to come from trusted sources.
Two-Factor Authentication (2FA): Encouraging or mandating the use of 2FA can add an additional layer of security, making it more difficult for attackers to gain unauthorized access.
Monitoring and Alerts: Implementing systems that monitor for unusual OAuth app creations or sign-in activities can help detect and respond to suspicious behavior promptly.
Email Filtering Enhancements: Updating email filters to scrutinize not just the sender’s address but also the content and context of the message can improve detection rates.
Collaboration with Service Providers: Working closely with platforms like Google to report and address vulnerabilities can lead to quicker resolutions and improved security for all users.
By adopting a multi-faceted approach that combines user awareness, technical safeguards, and proactive collaboration, organizations can better defend against these advanced phishing techniques.
