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!
Lifecycle Risk Management Under the EU AI Act, providers of high-risk AI systems are obligated to establish a formal risk management system that spans the entire lifecycle of the AI system—from design and development to deployment and ongoing use.
Continuous Implementation This system must be established, implemented, documented, and maintained over time, ensuring that risks are continuously monitored and managed as the AI system evolves.
Risk Identification The first core step is to identify and analyze all reasonably foreseeable risks the AI system may pose. This includes threats to health, safety, and fundamental rights when used as intended.
Misuse Considerations Next, providers must assess the risks associated with misuse of the AI system—those that are not intended but are reasonably predictable in real-world contexts.
Post-Market Data Analysis The system must include regular evaluation of new risks identified through the post-market monitoring process, ensuring real-time adaptability to emerging concerns.
Targeted Risk Measures Following risk identification, providers must adopt targeted mitigation measures tailored to reduce or eliminate the risks revealed through prior assessments.
Residual Risk Management If certain risks cannot be fully eliminated, the system must ensure these residual risks are acceptable, using mitigation strategies that bring them to a tolerable level.
System Testing Requirements High-risk AI systems must undergo extensive testing to verify that the risk management measures are effective and that the system performs reliably and safely in all foreseeable scenarios.
Special Consideration for Vulnerable Groups The risk management system must account for potential impacts on vulnerable populations, particularly minors (under 18), ensuring their rights and safety are adequately protected.
Ongoing Review and Adjustment The entire risk management process should be dynamic, regularly reviewed and updated based on feedback from real-world use, incident reports, and changing societal or regulatory expectations.
🔐 Main Requirement Summary:
Providers of high-risk AI systems must implement a comprehensive, documented, and dynamic risk management system that addresses foreseeable and emerging risks throughout the AI lifecycle—ensuring safety, fundamental rights protection, and consideration for vulnerable groups.
Cybersecurity is critical — but it’s not the only thing on a board’s mind. Executive leaders must make strategic decisions across the entire business, often with limited capital. So when CISOs ask for budget based solely on rising threats, without showing how it stacks up against other priorities, it becomes difficult to justify the spend.
Let’s consider a real-world scenario.
A company has $15 million in capital budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Multiple departments bring urgent and well-supported requests:
The CISO presents a cyber risk analysis using the FAIR model, showing that threat levels have surged due to automated AI-driven attacks. There’s now a 12% chance of a $15 million breach, and a 6% chance of a loss exceeding $35 million. A $6 million investment could reduce both the likelihood and potential impact by half.
The Chief Compliance Officer flags a looming regulatory risk. Without a $4 million compliance program upgrade, the company could face sanctions under new data transfer rules, risking both fines and disrupted global operations.
The Chief Marketing Officer argues that $5 million is needed to counter a competitor’s aggressive campaign launch. Without it, brand visibility may drop significantly, leading to an estimated $25 million decline in annual revenue.
The Strategy Lead proposes a $5 million acquisition of a startup with a product that complements their core offering. Early analysis projects a 30% return on investment within the first 12 months.
The Head of Workplace Safety requests $3 million to modernize outdated safety equipment and procedures. Incident reports are rising, and the potential cost of a serious injury — not to mention reputational damage — could be far greater.
The CIO outlines a $4 million plan to implement AI across customer service and logistics. The projected first-year impact: $2 million in savings and $6 million in additional revenue.
Each proposal has merit. But only $15 million is available. Should cybersecurity receive funding without evaluating how it compares to these other strategic needs?
Absolutely not.
Boards don’t decide based on fear — they decide based on business value. For cybersecurity to compete, it must be communicated in business terms: risk-adjusted ROI, financial exposure, and alignment with strategic goals. The days of saying “this is a critical vulnerability” without quantifying business impact are over.
Cyber risk is business risk — and it must be treated that way.
So here’s the real question: Are you making the case for cybersecurity in isolation? Or are you enabling informed, enterprise-level decisions?
Despite years of progress in the cybersecurity industry, one flawed mindset still lingers: assessing cyber risk as if it exists in a silo. Far too many organizations continue to focus on the “risk to information assets” — systems, servers, and data — while ignoring the larger picture: how those risks threaten the achievement of strategic business objectives.
This technical-first approach is understandable, especially for teams deeply embedded in IT or security operations. After all, threats like ransomware, phishing, and vulnerabilities in software systems are concrete, measurable, and urgent. But when cyber risk is framed solely in terms of what systems are vulnerable or which data might be exposed, the conversation never leaves the server room. It doesn’t reach the boardroom — or if it does, it’s lost in translation.
Why the Disconnect Matters
Business leaders don’t make decisions based on firewalls or patch levels. They prioritize growth, revenue, brand trust, customer retention, and regulatory compliance. If cyber risk isn’t explicitly tied to those business outcomes, it’s deprioritized — not because leadership doesn’t care, but because it hasn’t been made relevant.
Consider two ways of reporting the same issue:
Traditional framing: “Critical vulnerability in our ERP system could lead to data loss.”
Business-aligned framing: “If exploited, this vulnerability could halt our ability to process $8M in monthly sales orders, delaying shipments and damaging customer relationships during peak season.”
Which one gets budget approved faster?
The Real Risk Is to Business Continuity and Competitive Position
Data is an asset, yes — but only because it powers business functions. A compromise isn’t just a “security incident,” it’s a disruption to revenue streams, operational continuity, or brand reputation. If a phishing attack leads to credential theft, the real risk isn’t “loss of credentials” — it’s potential wire fraud, regulatory penalties, or a hit to investor confidence.
To manage cyber risk effectively, organizations must shift from asking “What’s the risk to this system?” to “What’s the risk to our ability to execute this critical business process?”
What Needs to Change?
Map technical risks to business outcomes. Every asset, system, and data flow should be tied to a business function. Don’t just classify systems by “sensitivity level”; classify them by their impact on revenue, operations, or customer experience.
Involve finance and operations early. Risk quantification must include input from finance, not just IT. If you want to talk about “impact,” use language CFOs understand: financial exposure, downtime cost, productivity loss, and potential liabilities.
Use scenarios, not scores. Risk scores (like CVSS) are useful for prioritizing technical work, but they don’t capture business context. A CVSS 9.8 on a dev server may matter less than a CVSS 5 on a production payment system. Scenario-based risk assessments, tailored to your business, provide more actionable insights.
Educate your board with what matters to them. Boards don’t need to understand encryption algorithms — they need to understand if a cyber risk could delay a product launch, spark a PR crisis, or violate a regulation that leads to fines.
The Bottom Line
Treating cyber risk as separate from business risk is not just outdated — it’s dangerous. In today’s digital economy, the two are inseparable. The organizations that thrive will be those that break down the silos between IT and the business, and assess cyber threats through the lens of what truly matters: achieving strategic objectives.
Your firewall isn’t just protecting data. It’s protecting the future of your business.
EU AI Act: A Risk-Based Approach to Managing AI Compliance
1. Objective and Scope The EU AI Act aims to ensure that AI systems placed on the EU market are safe, respect fundamental rights, and encourage trustworthy innovation. It applies to both public and private actors who provide or use AI in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or not. The Act follows a risk-based approach, categorizing AI systems into four levels of risk: unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal.
2. Prohibited AI Practices Certain AI applications are completely banned because they violate fundamental rights. These include systems that manipulate human behavior, exploit vulnerabilities of specific groups, enable social scoring by governments, or use real-time remote biometric identification in public spaces (with narrow exceptions such as law enforcement).
3. High-Risk AI Systems AI systems used in critical sectors—like biometric identification, infrastructure, education, employment, access to public services, and law enforcement—are considered high-risk. These systems must undergo strict compliance procedures, including risk assessments, data governance checks, documentation, human oversight, and post-market monitoring.
4. Obligations for High-Risk AI Providers Providers of high-risk AI must implement and document a quality management system, ensure datasets are relevant and free from bias, establish transparency and traceability mechanisms, and maintain detailed technical documentation. They must also register their AI system in a publicly accessible EU database before placing it on the market.
5. Roles and Responsibilities The Act defines clear responsibilities for all actors in the AI supply chain—providers, importers, distributors, and deployers. Each has specific obligations based on their role. For instance, deployers of high-risk AI systems must ensure proper human oversight and inform individuals impacted by the system.
6. Limited and Minimal Risk AI For AI systems with limited risk (like chatbots), providers must meet transparency requirements, such as informing users that they are interacting with AI. Minimal-risk systems (e.g., spam filters or AI in video games) are largely unregulated, though developers are encouraged to voluntarily follow codes of conduct and ethical guidelines.
7. General Purpose AI Models General-purpose AI (GPAI) models, including foundation models like GPT, are subject to specific transparency obligations. Developers must provide technical documentation, summaries of training data, and usage instructions. Advanced GPAIs with systemic risks face additional requirements, including risk management and cybersecurity obligations.
8. Enforcement, Governance, and Sanctions Each Member State will designate a national supervisory authority, while the EU will establish a European AI Office to oversee coordination and enforcement. Non-compliance can result in fines of up to €35 million or 7% of annual global turnover, depending on the severity of the violation.
9. Timeline and Compliance Strategy The AI Act will come into effect in stages after formal adoption. Prohibited practices will be banned within six months; GPAI rules will apply after 12 months; and the core high-risk system obligations will become enforceable in 24 months. Businesses should begin gap assessments, build internal governance structures, and prepare for conformity assessments to ensure timely compliance.
For U.S. organizations operating in or targeting the EU market, preparation involves mapping AI use cases against the Act’s risk tiers, enhancing risk management practices, and implementing robust documentation and accountability frameworks. By aligning with the EU AI Act’s principles, U.S. firms can not only ensure compliance but also demonstrate leadership in trustworthy AI on a global scale.
A compliance readiness checklist for U.S. organizations preparing for the EU AI Act:
Most risk assessments fail to support real decisions. Learn how to turn risk management into a strategic advantage, not just a compliance task.
1. In many organizations, risk assessments are treated as checklist exercises—completed to meet compliance requirements, not to drive action. They often lack relevance to current business decisions and serve more as formalities than strategic tools.
2. When no real decision is being considered, a risk assessment becomes little more than paperwork. It consumes time, effort, and even credibility without providing meaningful value to the business. In such cases, risk teams risk becoming disconnected from the core priorities of the organization.
3. This disconnect is reflected in recent research. According to PwC’s 2023 Global Risk Survey, while 73% of executives agree that risk management is critical to strategic decisions, only 22% believe it is effectively influencing those decisions. Gartner’s 2023 survey also found that over half of organizations see risk functions as too siloed to support enterprise-wide decisions.
4. Even more concerning is the finding from NC State’s ERM Initiative: over 60% of risk assessments are performed without a clear decision-making context. This means that most risk work happens in a vacuum, far removed from the actual choices business leaders are making.
5. Risk management should not be a separate track from business—it should be a core driver of decision-making under uncertainty. Its value lies in making trade-offs explicit, identifying blind spots, and empowering leaders to act with clarity and confidence.
6. Before launching into a new risk register update or a 100 plus page report, organizations should ask a sharper business related question: What business decision are we trying to support with this assessment? When risk is framed this way, it becomes a strategic advantage, not an overhead cost.
7. By shifting focus from managing risks to enabling better decisions, risk management becomes a force multiplier for strategy, innovation, and resilience. It helps business leaders act not just with caution—but with confidence.
Conclusion A well-executed risk assessment helps businesses prioritize what matters, allocate resources wisely, and protect value while pursuing growth. To be effective, risk assessments must be decision-driven, timely, and integrated into business conversations. Don’t treat them as routine reports—use them as decision tools that connect uncertainty to action.
1. Invisible, Over‑Privileged Agents Help Net Security highlights how AI agents—autonomous software acting on behalf of users—are increasingly embedded in enterprise systems without proper oversight. They often receive excessive permissions, operate unnoticed, and remain outside traditional identity governance controls
2. Critical Risks in Healthcare Arun Shrestha from BeyondID emphasizes the healthcare sector’s vulnerability. AI agents there handle Protected Health Information (PHI) and system access, increasing risks to patient privacy, safety, and regulatory compliance (e.g., HIPAA)
3. Identity Blind Spots Research shows many firms lack clarity about which AI agents have access to critical systems. AI agents can impersonate users or take unauthorized actions—yet these “non‑human identities” are seldom treated as significant security threats.
4. Growing Threat from Impersonation TechRepublic’s data indicates only roughly 30% of US organizations map AI agent access, and 37% express concern over agents posing as users. In healthcare, up to 61% report experiencing attacks involving AI agents
5. Five Mitigation Steps Shrestha outlines five key defenses: (1) inventory AI agents, (2) enforce least privilege, (3) monitor their actions, (4) integrate them into identity governance processes, and (5) establish human oversight—ensuring no agent operates unchecked.
6. Broader Context This video builds on earlier insights about securing agentic AI, such as monitoring, prompt‑injection protection, and privilege scoping. The core call: treat AI agents like any high-risk insider.
📝 Feedback (7th paragraph): This adeptly brings attention to a critical and often overlooked risk: AI agents as non‑human insiders. The healthcare case strengthens the urgency, yet adding quantitative data—such as what percentage of enterprises currently enforce least privilege on agents—would provide stronger impact. Explaining how to align these steps with existing frameworks like ISO 27001 or NIST would add practical value. Overall, it raises awareness and offers actionable controls, but would benefit from deeper technical guidance and benchmarks to empower concrete implementation.
“Whether you’re a technology professional, policymaker, academic, or simply a curious reader, this book will arm you with the knowledge to navigate the complex intersection of AI, security, and society.”
Many winery owners and executives—particularly those operating small to mid-sized, family-run estates—underestimate their exposure to cyber threats. Yet with the rise of direct-to-consumer channels like POS systems, wine clubs, and ecommerce platforms, these businesses now collect and store sensitive customer and employee data, including payment details, birthdates, and Social Security numbers. This makes them attractive targets for cybercriminals.
The Emerging Threat of Cyber-Physical Attacks
Wineries increasingly rely on automated production systems and IoT sensors to manage fermentation, temperature control, and chemical dosing. These digital tools can be manipulated by hackers to:
Disrupt production by altering temperature or chemical settings.
Spoil inventory through false sensor data or remote tampering.
Undermine trust by threatening product safety and quality.
A Cautionary Tale
While there are no public reports of terrorist attacks on the wine industry’s supply chain, the 1985 Austrian wine scandal is a stark reminder of what can happen when integrity is compromised. In that case, wine was adulterated with antifreeze (diethylene glycol) to manipulate taste—resulting in global recalls, destroyed reputations, and public health risks.
The lesson is clear: cyber and physical safety in the winery business are now deeply intertwined.
2. Why Vineyards and Wineries Are at Risk
High-value data: Personal and financial details stored in club databases or POS systems can be exploited and sold on the dark web.
Legacy systems & limited expertise: Many wineries rely on outdated IT infrastructure and lack in-house cybersecurity staff.
Regulatory complexity: Compliance with data privacy regulations like CCPA/CPRA adds to the burden, and gaps can lead to penalties.
Charming targets: Boutique and estate brands, which often emphasize hospitality and trust, can be unexpectedly appealing to attackers seeking vulnerable entry points.
3. Why It Matters
Reputation risk: A breach can shatter consumer trust—especially among affluent wine club customers who expect discretion and reliability.
Financial & legal exposure: Incidents may invite steep fines, ransomware costs, and lawsuits under privacy laws.
Operational disruption: Outages or ransomware can cripple point-of-sale and club systems, causing revenue loss and logistical headaches.
Competitive advantage: Secure operations can boost customer confidence, support audit and M&A readiness, and unlock better insurance or investor opportunities.
4. What You Can Do About It
Risk & compliance assessment: Discover vulnerabilities in systems, Wi‑Fi, and employee habits. Score your risk with a 10-page report for stakeholders.
Privacy compliance support: Navigate CCPA/CPRA (and PCI/GDPR as needed) to keep your winery legally sound.
Defense against phishing & ransomware: Conduct employee training, simulations, and implement defenses.
Security maturity roadmap: Prioritize improvements—like endpoint protection, firewalls, 2FA setups—and phase them according to your brand and budget.
Fractional vCISO support: Access quarterly executive consultations to align compliance and tech strategy without hiring full-time experts.
Optional services: Pen testing, PCI-DSS support, vendor reviews, and business continuity planning for deeper security.
DISC WinerySecure™ offers a tailored roadmap to safeguard your winery:
You don’t need to face this alone. We offer Free checklist + consultation.
DISC InfoSec Virtual CISO | Wine Industry Security & Compliance
Investing in a proactive security strategy isn’t just about avoiding threats—it’s about protecting your brand, securing compliance, and empowering growth. Contact DISC WinerySecure™ today for a free consultation.
​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.
Cyber security risk management is a critical aspect of data security, underpinning various frameworks and regulations such as GDPR, NIST CSF, and ISO 27001. The process begins by establishing a common vocabulary to ensure clear communication across the organization. Risk in this context typically refers to potential negative outcomes for the organization, with the goal of identifying and mitigating these risks while considering time and cost implications.
When assessing risks, two key factors are considered: likelihood and impact. These need to be clearly defined and quantified to ensure consistent interpretation throughout the organization. Risk levels are often categorized as low, medium, or high, with corresponding color-coding for easy visualization. A low risk might be something the organization can tolerate, while a high risk could have catastrophic consequences requiring immediate action.
Impact categories can include financial, strategic, customer-related, employee-related, regulatory, operational, and reputational aspects. Not all categories apply to every organization, and some may overlap. Defining the values for these categories is crucial for establishing a common language and meeting ISO 27001 requirements for consistent risk assessments.
Financial impact is typically the easiest to define, using currency figures or percentages of annual turnover. Non-financial impacts, such as operational or reputational, require more nuanced definitions. For example, operational impact might be measured by the duration of business disruption, while reputational impact could be assessed based on the level of media interest.
Likelihood categories are usually defined on a scale from “very unlikely” to “very likely,” with clear descriptions of what each category means. These can be based on expected frequency of occurrence, such as annually, monthly, weekly, or daily. Estimating likelihood can be based on past experiences within the organization or industry-wide occurrences.
Using multiple impact categories is important because security is everyone’s responsibility, and different departments may need to assess impact in different terms. For instance, a chemical manufacturer might need to define impact levels in terms of employee health and safety, while other departments might focus on financial or operational impacts.
A risk heat map, which combines likelihood and impact levels, is a useful tool for visualizing risk severity. The highest risk area (typically colored red) represents what would be catastrophic for the organization, regardless of the specific impact category. This approach allows for a comprehensive view of risks across different aspects of the business, enabling more effective risk management strategies.
DISC InfoSec offer free initial high level assessment – Based on your needs DISC InfoSec offer ongoing compliance management or vCISO retainer.
The best approach for SMBs to start the cybersecurity risk management process involves the following steps:
Understand Your Risks:
Conduct a basic risk assessment to identify critical assets, potential threats, and vulnerabilities.
Prioritize risks based on their potential impact and likelihood.
Set Clear Goals:
Define your cybersecurity objectives, such as protecting customer data, complying with regulations, or avoiding downtime.
Develop a Security Policy:
Create a simple, easy-to-follow cybersecurity policy that outlines acceptable use, password management, and data handling practices.
Start with the Basics:
Implement basic cybersecurity measures like using firewalls, antivirus software, and regular system updates.
Use strong passwords and enable multi-factor authentication (MFA).
Train Your Employees:
Provide ongoing security awareness training to help employees recognize phishing, social engineering, and other threats.
Back Up Your Data:
Regularly back up critical data and store it in a secure, offsite location.
Test your backup and recovery process to ensure it works effectively.
Monitor and Respond:
Set up basic monitoring to detect suspicious activity (e.g., failed login attempts).
Establish an incident response plan to know what to do in case of an attack.
Leverage External Resources:
Work with a trusted Managed Security Service Provider (MSSP) or consultant to cover any expertise gaps.
Consider using frameworks like NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) or CIS Controls for guidance.
Start Small and Scale Up:
Focus on quick wins that provide maximum risk reduction with minimal effort.
Gradually invest in more advanced tools and processes as your cybersecurity maturity grows.
Regularly Review and Update:
Reassess risks, policies, and controls periodically to stay ahead of evolving threats.
This structured approach helps SMBs build a solid foundation without overwhelming resources or budgets.
You can’t eliminate risk entirely, but you can minimize it. If a cyberattack occurs, here are three key steps to take:
Plan Ahead: Create a detailed incident response plan now, involving all key departments (e.g., technical, legal, financial, marketing). Practice it through tabletop exercises to prepare for unexpected scenarios. The better your preparation, the less chaos you’ll face during an attack.
Contact Your Cyber Insurance Company: Reach out to your cyber insurance provider immediately. They can coordinate response teams, provide legal and regulatory support, handle public relations, negotiate ransoms, assist with technical recovery, and help strengthen security post-incident. Follow their guidance to avoid unnecessary expenses.
Return to Normal Operations: Once the active threat is contained, declare the incident over and shift your team back to regular duties. Fix vulnerabilities and train staff but avoid staying in “response mode” indefinitely, as it can lead to burnout, distraction, and reduced productivity.
Preparation and thoughtful responses are key to minimizing damage and ensuring a smoother recovery from cyber incidents.
Additional steps to help minimize information security risks:
1. Conduct Regular Risk Assessments
Identify vulnerabilities in your systems, applications, and processes.
Prioritize risks based on their likelihood and potential impact.
Address gaps with appropriate controls or mitigations.
2. Implement Strong Access Controls
Use multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all critical systems and applications.
Follow the principle of least privilege (grant access only to those who truly need it).
Regularly review and revoke unused or outdated access permissions.
3. Keep Systems and Software Up-to-Date
Patch operating systems, software, and firmware as soon as updates are released.
Use automated tools to manage and deploy patches consistently.
4. Train Employees on Security Best Practices
Conduct regular security awareness training, covering topics like phishing, password hygiene, and recognizing suspicious activity.
Simulate phishing attacks to test and improve employee vigilance.
5. Use Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Solutions
Deploy advanced tools to monitor, detect, and respond to threats on all devices.
Set up alerts for abnormal behavior or unauthorized access attempts.
6. Encrypt Sensitive Data
Use strong encryption protocols for data at rest and in transit.
Ensure proper key management practices are followed.
7. Establish Network Segmentation
Separate critical systems and sensitive data from less critical networks.
Limit lateral movement in case of a breach.
8. Implement Robust Backup Strategies
Maintain regular, secure backups of all critical data.
Store backups offline or in isolated environments to protect against ransomware.
Test recovery processes to ensure backups are functional and up-to-date.
9. Monitor Systems Continuously
Use Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) tools for real-time monitoring and alerts.
Proactively look for signs of intrusion or anomalies.
10. Develop an Incident Reporting Culture
Encourage employees to report security issues or suspicious activities immediately.
Avoid a blame culture so employees feel safe coming forward.
11. Engage in Threat Intelligence Sharing
Join industry groups or forums to stay informed about new threats and vulnerabilities.
Leverage shared intelligence to strengthen your defenses.
12. Test Your Defenses Regularly
Conduct regular penetration testing to identify and fix exploitable weaknesses.
Perform red team exercises to simulate real-world attacks and refine your response capabilities.
By integrating these steps into your cybersecurity strategy, you’ll strengthen your defenses and reduce the likelihood of an incident.
Feel free to reach out if you have any additional questions or feedback.
DISC InfoSec offer free initial high level assessment – Based on your needs DISC InfoSec offer ongoing compliance management or vCISO retainer.
“The SOA can easily be produced by examining the risk assessment to identify the necessary controls and risk treatment plan to identify those that are planned to be implemented. Only controls identified in the risk assessment can be included in the SOA. Controls cannot be added to the SOA independent of the risk assessment. There should be consistency between the controls necessary to realize selected risk treatment options and the SOA. The SOA can state that the justification for the inclusion of a control is the same for all controls and that they have been identified in the risk assessment as necessary to treat one or more risks to an acceptable level. No further justification for the inclusion of a control is needed for any of the controls.”
This paragraph from ISO 27005 explains the relationship between the Statement of Applicability (SoA) and the risk assessment process in an ISO 27001-based Information Security Management System (ISMS). Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
SoA Derivation from Risk Assessment
The SoA must be based on the risk assessment and risk treatment plan.
It should only include controls that were identified as necessary during the risk assessment.
Organizations cannot arbitrarily add controls to the SoA without a corresponding risk justification.
Consistency with Risk Treatment Plan
The SoA must align with the selected risk treatment options.
This ensures that the controls listed in the SoA effectively address the identified risks.
Justification for Controls
The SoA can state that all controls were chosen because they are necessary for risk treatment.
No separate or additional justification is needed for each individual control beyond its necessity in treating risks.
Why This Matters:
Ensures a risk-driven approach to control selection.
Prevents the arbitrary inclusion of unnecessary controls, which could lead to inefficiencies.
Helps in audits and compliance by clearly showing the link between risks, treatments, and controls.
Practical Example of SoA and Risk Assessment Linkage
Scenario:
A company conducts a risk assessment as part of its ISO 27001 implementation and identifies the following risk:
Risk: Unauthorized access to sensitive customer data due to weak authentication mechanisms.
Risk Level: High
Risk Treatment Plan: Implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.
How This Affects the SoA:
Control Selection:
The company refers to Annex A of ISO 27001 and identifies Control A.9.4.1 (Use of Secure Authentication Mechanisms) as necessary to mitigate the risk.
This control is added to the SoA because the risk assessment identified it as necessary.
Justification in the SoA:
The SoA will list A.9.4.1 – Secure Authentication Mechanisms as an included control.
The justification can be: “This control has been identified as necessary in the risk assessment to mitigate the risk of unauthorized access to customer data.”
No additional justification is needed because the link to the risk assessment is sufficient.
What Cannot Be Done:
The company cannot arbitrarily add a control, such as A.14.2.9 (Protection of Test Data), unless it was identified as necessary in the risk assessment.
Adding controls without risk justification would violate ISO 27005’s requirement for consistency.
Key Takeaways:
Every control in the SoA must be traceable to a risk.
The SoA cannot contain controls that were not justified in the risk assessment.
Justification for controls can be standardized, reducing documentation overhead.
This approach ensures that the ISMS remains risk-based, justifiable, and auditable.
The article emphasizes the importance of integrating risk management and information security management systems (ISMS) for effective IT security. It recommends a risk-based approach, leveraging frameworks like ISO/IEC 27001 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0, to guide decisions that counteract risks while aligning with business objectives. Combining these methodologies enhances control accuracy and ensures that organizational assets critical to business goals are appropriately classified and protected.
An enterprise risk management system (ERMS) bridges IT operations and business processes by defining the business value of organizational assets. This alignment enables ISMS to identify and safeguard IT assets vital to achieving organizational objectives. Developing a registry of assets through ERMS avoids redundancies and ensures ISMS efforts are business-driven, not purely technological.
The NIST CSF 2.0 introduces a “govern” function, improving governance, priority-setting, and alignment with security objectives. It integrates with frameworks like ISO 27001 using a maturity model to evaluate controls’ effectiveness and compliance. This approach ensures clarity, reduces redundancies, and provides actionable insights into improving cybersecurity risk profiles and resilience across the supply chain.
Operationally, integrating frameworks involves a centralized tool for managing controls, aligning them with risk treatment plans (RTP), and avoiding overlaps. By sharing metrics across frameworks and using maturity models, organizations can efficiently evaluate security measures and align with business goals. The article underscores the value of combining ISO 27001’s holistic ISMS with NIST CSF’s risk-focused profile to foster continual improvement in an evolving digital ecosystem.
For example, let’s consider an elementary task such as updating the risk policy. This is part of control 5.1 of ISO27001 on information security policies. It is part of the subcategory GV.PO-01 of the NIST CSF on policies for managing cybersecurity risks, but it is also present in the RTP with regard to the generic risk of failure to update company policies. The elementary control tasks are evaluated individually. Then, the results of multiple similar tasks are aggregated to obtain a control of one of the various standards, frameworks or plans that we are considering.
Best method for evaluating the effectiveness of control activities may be to adopt the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). It is a simple model for finding the level of maturity of implementation of an action with respect to the objectives set for that action. Furthermore, it is sufficiently generic to be adaptable to all evaluation environments and is perfectly linked with gap analysis. The latter is precisely the technique suitable for our evaluations – that is, by measuring the current state of maturity of implementation of the control and comparing it with the pre-established level of effectiveness, we are able to determine how much still needs to be done.
In short, the advantage of evaluating control tasks instead of the controls proposed by the frameworks is twofold.
The first advantage is in the very nature of the control task that corresponds to a concrete action, required by some business process, and therefore well identified in terms of role and responsibility. In other words, something is used that the company has built for its own needs and therefore knows well. This is an indicator of quality in the evaluation.
The second advantage is in the method of treatment of the various frameworks. Instead of building specific controls with new costs to be sustained for their management, it is preferable to identify each control of the framework for which control tasks are relevant and automatically aggregate the relative evaluations. The only burden is to define the relationship between the companys control tasks and the controls of the chosen framework, but just once.
AWS emphasizes the importance of threat modeling for securing generative AI workloads, focusing on balancing risk management and business outcomes. A robust threat model is essential across the AI lifecycle stages, including design, deployment, and operations. Risks specific to generative AI, such as model poisoning and data leakage, need proactive mitigation, with organizations tailoring risk tolerance to business needs. Regular testing for vulnerabilities, like malicious prompts, ensures resilience against evolving threats.
Generative AI applications follow a structured lifecycle, from identifying business objectives to monitoring deployed models. Security considerations should be integral from the start, with measures like synthetic threat simulations during testing. For applications on AWS, leveraging its security tools, such as Amazon Bedrock and OpenSearch, helps enforce role-based access controls and prevent unauthorized data exposure.
AWS promotes building secure AI solutions on its cloud, which offers over 300 security services. Customers can utilize AWS infrastructure’s compliance and privacy frameworks while tailoring controls to organizational needs. For instance, techniques like Retrieval-Augmented Generation ensure sensitive data is redacted before interaction with foundational models, minimizing risks.
Threat modeling is described as a collaborative process involving diverse roles—business stakeholders, developers, security experts, and adversarial thinkers. Consistency in approach and alignment with development workflows (e.g., Agile) ensures scalability and integration. Using existing tools for collaboration and issue tracking reduces friction, making threat modeling a standard step akin to unit testing.
Organizations are urged to align security practices with business priorities while maintaining flexibility. Regular audits and updates to models and controls help adapt to the dynamic AI threat landscape. AWS provides reference architectures and security matrices to guide organizations in implementing these best practices efficiently.
Threat composer threat statement builder
You can write and document these possible threats to your application in the form of threat statements. Threat statements are a way to maintain consistency and conciseness when you document your threat. At AWS, we adhere to a threat grammar which follows the syntax:
A [threat source] with [prerequisites] can [threat action] which leads to [threat impact], negatively impacting [impacted assets].
This threat grammar structure helps you to maintain consistency and allows you to iteratively write useful threat statements. As shown in Figure 2, Threat Composer provides you with this structure for new threat statements and includes examples to assist you.
Proactive governance is a continuous process of risk and threat identification, analysis and remediation. In addition, it also includes proactively updating policies, standards and procedures in response to emerging threats or regulatory changes.
Clause 6.1.1 is often misunderstood and frequently overlooked. It requires organizations to assess risks and opportunities specifically related to the Information Security Management System (ISMS)—focusing not on information security itself, but on the ISMS’s effectiveness. This is distinct from the information security risk assessment activities outlined in 6.1.2 and 6.1.3, which require different methods and considerations.
In practice, it’s rare for organizations to assess ISMS-specific risks and opportunities (per 6.1.1), and certification auditors seldom address this requirement.
To clarify, it’s proposed that the information security risk assessment activities (6.1.2 and 6.1.3) be moved to clause 8. This aligns with the structure of other management system standards (e.g., ISO 22301 for Business Continuity Planning). Additionally, a note similar to ISO 22301’s should be included:
“Risks in this sub clause relate to information security, while risks and opportunities related to the effectiveness of the management system are addressed in 6.1.1.”
Need expert guidance? Book a free 30-minute consultation with a ISO27k expert.
The “Risk Assessment analysis” covers key areas of risk assessment in information security:
Risk Assessment Process: The core steps include identifying assets, analyzing risks, and evaluating the value and impact of each risk. This process helps determine necessary controls and treatments to mitigate or accept risks.
Types of Risk:
Asset-Based Risk: Focuses on assessing risks to tangible assets like data or hardware.
Scenario-Based Risk: Evaluates hypothetical risk scenarios, such as potential data breaches.
Risk Analysis:
Impact Analysis: Measures the financial, operational, and reputational impact of risks, assigning scores from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high).
Likelihood Analysis: Assesses how likely a risk event is to occur, also on a scale from 1 to 5.
Risk Response Options:
Tolerate (accept risk),
Treat (mitigate risk),
Transfer (share risk, e.g., via insurance),
Terminate (avoid risk by ceasing the risky activity).
Residual Risk and Risk Appetite: After treatments are applied, residual risk remains. Organizations determine their acceptable level of risk, known as risk appetite, to guide their response strategies.
These structured steps ensure consistent, repeatable risk management across information assets, aligning with standards like ISO 27001.
The Risk Assessment Process involves systematically identifying and evaluating potential risks to assets. This includes:
Identifying Assets: Recognizing valuable information assets, such as data or physical equipment.
Risk Analysis: Analyzing the potential threats and vulnerabilities related to these assets to assess the level of risk they pose.
Evaluating Impact and Likelihood: Measuring the potential impact of each risk and estimating how likely each risk is to occur.
Implementing Controls: Deciding on control measures to mitigate, transfer, accept, or avoid each risk, based on organizational risk tolerance.
To streamline this process, organizations often use risk assessment tools. These tools assist by automating data collection, calculating risk levels, and supporting decision-making on risk treatments, ultimately making the assessment more consistent, thorough, and efficient.
CyberComply makes compliance with cybersecurity requirements and data privacy laws simple and affordable.
Manage all your cybersecurity and data privacy obligations
Accelerate certification and supercharge project effectiveness
Get immediate visibility of critical data and key performance indicators
Stay ahead of regulatory changes with our scalable compliance solution
Reduce errors and improve completeness of risk management processes
Identify and treat data security risks before they become critical concerns
Reduce data security risks with agility and efficiency
Quickly identify and treat data security risks before they become critical concerns with the intuitive, easy-to-use risk manager tool
Keep track of data security compliance requirements and the security controls you have in place in conjunction with critical laws and information security frameworks
Demonstrate compliance with ISO 27001, the leading information security management standard, with powerful built-in reports
The software includes control sets from ISO 27001, ISO 27017, ISO 27018, ISO 22301, ISO 27032, NIST, CSA CCM, the PCI DSS, SOC 2, and the CPRA
Need expert guidance? Book a free 30-minute consultation with a Risk assessment specialist.
The ISO 27001 risk management guide provides a structured methodology for managing information security risks aligned with ISO standards. It first covers setting risk criteria, helping organizations define their risk appetite and identify high-priority assets and vulnerabilities. Risk assessment follows, where risks are quantified based on their likelihood and impact, allowing for prioritization.
The guide emphasizes the importance of treatment planning, advising on risk responses: avoidance, transfer, mitigation, or acceptance, with decisions documented for compliance. Documentation ensures transparency and traceability, forming a record of risk decisions.
A key component is regular review, where organizations reassess risks as threats change, supporting ISO 27001’s principle of continuous improvement. This cyclical approach helps keep the risk management framework adaptable and responsive to evolving security needs.
Additionally, the guide underscores the role of management, recommending their involvement in review and support of risk processes. Management buy-in ensures that security efforts align with strategic goals, encouraging organization-wide commitment.
In summary, the guide helps organizations maintain a robust, adaptive risk management system that meets ISO 27001 standards, enabling proactive risk control. For more detail, you can access the document here.
There is a misconception among security professionals: the belief that all information security risks will result in significant business risks. This perspective is misleading because not every information security incident has a severe impact on an organization’s bottom line. Business decision-makers can become desensitized to security alerts if they are inundated with generalized statements, leading them to ignore real risks. Thus, it is essential for security experts to present nuanced, precise analyses that distinguish between minor and significant threats to maintain credibility and ensure their assessments are taken seriously.
There are two types of risks:
Information Security Risk: This occurs when a threat (e.g., a virus) encounters a vulnerability (e.g., lack of antivirus protection), potentially compromising confidentiality, availability, or integrity of information. Depending on the severity, it can range from a minor issue, like a temporary power outage, to a critical breach, such as theft of sensitive data.
Business Risk: This affects the organization’s financial stability, compelling decision-makers to act. It can manifest as lost revenue, increased costs (e.g., penalties), or reputational damage, especially if regulatory fines are involved.
Not all information security risks translate directly to business risks. For example, ISO27001 emphasizes calculating the Annual Loss Expectation (ALE) and suggests that risks should only be addressed if their ALE exceeds the organization’s acceptable threshold.
Example:
Small Business Data Breach: A small Apple repair company faced internal sabotage when a disgruntled employee reformatted all administrative systems, erasing customer records. The company managed to recover by restoring data from backups and keeping customer communication open. Despite the breach’s severity, the company retained its customers, and the incident was contained. This case underscores the importance of adequate data management and disaster recovery planning.
Several factors to consider when assessing the relationship between information security and business risk:
Business Model: Certain businesses can withstand breaches with minimal financial impact, while others (e.g., payment processors) face more significant risks.
Legal Impact: Fines and legal costs can sometimes outweigh the direct costs of a breach. Organizations must assess regulatory requirements and contractual obligations to understand potential legal implications.
Direct Financial Impact: While breaches can lead to financial loss, this is sometimes treated as a routine cost of doing business, akin to paying for regular IT services.
Affected Stakeholders: It is crucial to identify which parties will bear the brunt of the damage. In some cases, third parties, like investors, may suffer more than the organization experiencing the breach.
Ultimately, information security risks must be evaluated within the broader business context. A comprehensive understanding of the company’s environment, stakeholders, and industry will help in prioritizing actions and reducing overall breach costs.
Andrew Pattison, a seasoned expert with over 30 years in information security and risk management, emphasizes the pragmatic nature of ISO 27001 in this interview. He explains that ISO 27001 is often misunderstood as a rigid framework when, in fact, it takes a flexible, risk-based approach. This misconception arises because many implementers prioritize certification, leading them to adopt a “you must do X” attitude, which gives the impression that the standard’s clauses are more rigid than they are. Pattison stresses that organizations can tailor controls based on risk, selecting or excluding controls as needed, provided they can justify these decisions.
He explains that a true risk-based approach to ISO 27001 involves understanding risk as the combination of a vulnerability, a threat to that vulnerability, and the likelihood of that threat being exploited. Organizations often focus on sensationalized, niche technical risks rather than practical issues like staff awareness training, which can be addressed easily and cost-effectively. Pattison advises focusing on risks that have a real-world impact, rather than obscure ones that are less likely to materialize.
To keep risk assessments manageable, Pattison advocates for simplicity. He favors straightforward risk matrices and encourages organizations to focus on what truly matters. According to him, risk management should answer two questions: “What do I need to worry about?” and “How do I address those worries?” Complicated risk assessments, often bogged down by mathematical models, fail to provide clear, actionable insights. The key is to maintain focus on where the real risks lie and avoid unnecessary complexity.
Pattison also believes in actively involving clients in the risk assessment process, rather than conducting it on their behalf. By guiding clients through the process, he helps them develop a deeper understanding of their own risks, linking these risks to their business objectives and justifying the necessary controls. This collaborative approach ensures that clients are better equipped to manage their risks in a meaningful and practical way, rather than relying on third parties to do the work for them.
For more information on Andrew Pattison interview, you can visit here
AI is revolutionizing audit, risk, and compliance by streamlining processes through automation. Tasks like data collection, control testing, and risk assessments, which were once time-consuming, are now being done faster and with more precision. This allows teams to focus on more critical strategic decisions.
In auditing, AI identifies anomalies and uncovers patterns in real-time, enhancing both the depth and accuracy of audits. AI’s ability to process large datasets also helps maintain compliance with evolving regulations like the EU’s AI Act, while mitigating human error.
Beyond audits, AI supports risk management by providing dynamic insights that adapt to changing threat landscapes. This enables continuous risk monitoring rather than periodic reviews, making organizations more responsive to emerging risks, including cybersecurity threats.
AI also plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between cybersecurity, compliance, and ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) goals. It integrates these areas into a single strategy, allowing businesses to track and manage risks while aligning with sustainability initiatives and regulatory requirements.
