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!
ISO 27001: The Security Foundation ISO/IEC 27001 is the global standard for establishing, implementing, and maintaining an Information Security Management System (ISMS). It focuses on protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information through risk-based security controls. For most organizations, this is the bedrock—governing infrastructure security, access control, incident response, vendor risk, and operational resilience. It answers the question: Are we managing information security risks in a systematic and auditable way?
ISO 27701: Extending Security into Privacy ISO/IEC 27701 builds directly on ISO 27001 by extending the ISMS into a Privacy Information Management System (PIMS). It introduces structured controls for handling personally identifiable information (PII), clarifying roles such as data controllers and processors, and aligning security practices with privacy obligations. Where ISO 27001 protects data broadly, ISO 27701 adds explicit guardrails around how personal data is collected, processed, retained, and shared—bridging security operations with privacy compliance.
ISO 42001: Governing AI Systems ISO/IEC 42001 is the emerging standard for AI management systems. Unlike traditional IT or privacy standards, it governs the entire AI lifecycle—from design and training to deployment, monitoring, and retirement. It addresses AI-specific risks such as bias, explainability, model drift, misuse, and unintended impact. Importantly, ISO 42001 is not a bolt-on framework; it assumes security and privacy controls already exist and focuses on how AI systems amplify risk if governance is weak.
Integrating the Three into a Unified Governance, Risk, and Compliance Model When combined, ISO 27001, ISO 27701, and ISO 42001 form an integrated governance and risk management structure—the “ISO Trifecta.” ISO 27001 provides the secure operational foundation, ISO 27701 ensures privacy and data protection are embedded into processes, and ISO 42001 acts as the governance engine for AI-driven decision-making. Together, they create mutually reinforcing controls: security protects AI infrastructure, privacy constrains data use, and AI governance ensures accountability, transparency, and continuous risk oversight. Instead of managing three separate compliance efforts, organizations can align policies, risk assessments, controls, and audits under a single, coherent management system.
Perspective: Why Integrated Governance Matters Integrated governance is no longer optional—especially in an AI-driven world. Treating security, privacy, and AI risk as separate silos creates gaps precisely where regulators, customers, and attackers are looking. The real value of the ISO Trifecta is not certification; it’s coherence. When governance is integrated, risk decisions are consistent, controls scale across technologies, and AI systems are held to the same rigor as legacy systems. Organizations that adopt this mindset early won’t just be compliant—they’ll be trusted.
At DISC InfoSec, we help organizations navigate this landscape by aligning AI risk management, governance, security, and compliance into a single, practical roadmap. Whether you are experimenting with AI or deploying it at scale, we help you choose and operationalize the right frameworks to reduce risk and build trust. Learn more at DISC InfoSec.
The threat landscape is entering a new phase with the rise of AI-assisted malware. What once required well-funded teams and months of development can now be created by a single individual in days using AI. This dramatically lowers the barrier to entry for advanced cyberattacks.
This shift means attackers can scale faster, adapt quicker, and deliver higher-quality attacks with fewer resources. As a result, smaller and mid-sized organizations are no longer “too small to matter” and are increasingly attractive targets.
Emerging malware frameworks are more modular, stealthy, and cloud-aware, designed to persist, evade detection, and blend into modern IT environments. Traditional signature-based defenses and slow response models are struggling to keep pace with this speed and sophistication.
Critically, this is no longer just a technical problem — it is a business risk. AI-enabled attacks increase the likelihood of operational disruption, regulatory exposure, financial loss, and reputational damage, often faster than organizations can react.
Organizations that will remain resilient are not those chasing the latest tools, but those making strategic security decisions. This includes treating cybersecurity as a core element of business resilience, not an IT afterthought.
Key priorities include moving toward Zero Trust and behavior-based detection, maintaining strong asset visibility and patch hygiene, investing in practical security awareness, and establishing clear governance around internal AI usage.
The cybersecurity landscape is undergoing a fundamental shift with the emergence of a new class of malware that is largely created using artificial intelligence (AI) rather than traditional development teams. Recent reporting shows that advanced malware frameworks once requiring months of collaborative effort can now be developed in days with AI’s help.
The most prominent example prompting this concern is the discovery of the VoidLink malware framework — an AI-driven, cloud-native Linux malware platform uncovered by security researchers. Rather than being a simple script or proof-of-concept, VoidLink appears to be a full, modular framework with sophisticated stealth and persistence capabilities.
What makes this remarkable isn’t just the malware itself, but how it was developed: evidence points to a single individual using AI tools to generate and assemble most of the code, something that previously would have required a well-coordinated team of experts.
This capability accelerates threat development dramatically. Where malware used to take months to design, code, test, iterate, and refine, AI assistance can collapse that timeline to days or weeks, enabling adversaries with limited personnel and resources to produce highly capable threats.
The practical implications are significant. Advanced malware frameworks like VoidLink are being engineered to operate stealthily within cloud and container environments, adapt to target systems, evade detection, and maintain long-term footholds. They’re not throwaway tools — they’re designed for persistent, strategic compromise.
This isn’t an abstract future problem. Already, there are real examples of AI-assisted malware research showing how AI can be used to create more evasive and adaptable malicious code — from polymorphic ransomware that sidesteps detection to automated worms that spread faster than defenders can respond.
The rise of AI-generated malware fundamentally challenges traditional defenses. Signature-based detection, static analysis, and manual response processes struggle when threats are both novel and rapidly evolving. The attack surface expands when bad actors leverage the same AI innovation that defenders use.
For security leaders, this means rethinking strategies: investing in behavior-based detection, threat hunting, cloud-native security controls, and real-time monitoring rather than relying solely on legacy defenses. Organizations must assume that future threats may be authored as much by machines as by humans.
In my view, this transition marks one of the first true inflection points in cyber risk: AI has joined the attacker team not just as a helper, but as a core part of the offensive playbook. This amplifies both the pace and quality of attacks and underscores the urgency of evolving our defensive posture from reactive to anticipatory. We’re not just defending against more attacks — we’re defending against self-evolving, machine-assisted adversaries.
Perspective: AI has permanently altered the economics of cybercrime. The question for leadership is no longer “Are we secure today?” but “Are we adapting fast enough for what’s already here?” Organizations that fail to evolve their security strategy at the speed of AI will find themselves defending yesterday’s risks against tomorrow’s attackers.
At DISC InfoSec, we help organizations navigate this landscape by aligning AI risk management, governance, security, and compliance into a single, practical roadmap. Whether you are experimenting with AI or deploying it at scale, we help you choose and operationalize the right frameworks to reduce risk and build trust. Learn more at DISC InfoSec.
The first step in integrating AI management systems is establishing clear boundaries within your existing information security framework. Organizations should conduct a comprehensive inventory of all AI systems currently deployed, including machine learning models, large language models, and recommendation engines. This involves identifying which departments and teams are actively using or developing AI capabilities, and mapping how these systems interact with assets already covered under your ISMS such as databases, applications, and infrastructure. For example, if your ISMS currently manages CRM and analytics platforms, you would extend coverage to include AI-powered chatbots or fraud detection systems that rely on that data.
Expanding Risk Assessment for AI-Specific Threats
Traditional information security risk registers must be augmented to capture AI-unique vulnerabilities that fall outside conventional cybersecurity concerns. Organizations should incorporate risks such as algorithmic bias and discrimination in AI outputs, model poisoning and adversarial attacks, shadow AI adoption through unauthorized LLM tools, and intellectual property leakage through training data or prompts. The ISO 42001 Annex A controls provide valuable guidance here, and organizations can leverage existing risk methodologies like ISO 27005 or NIST RMF while extending them with AI-specific threat vectors and impact scenarios.
Updating Governance Policies for AI Integration
Rather than creating entirely separate AI policies, organizations should strategically enhance existing ISMS documentation to address AI governance. This includes updating Acceptable Use Policies to restrict unauthorized use of public AI tools, revising Data Classification Policies to properly tag and protect training datasets, strengthening Third-Party Risk Policies to evaluate AI vendors and their model provenance, and enhancing Change Management Policies to enforce model version control and deployment approval workflows. The key is creating an AI Governance Policy that references and builds upon existing ISMS documents rather than duplicating effort.
Building AI Oversight into Security Governance Structures
Effective AI governance requires expanding your existing information security committee or steering council to include stakeholders with AI-specific expertise. Organizations should incorporate data scientists, AI/ML engineers, legal and privacy professionals, and dedicated risk and compliance leads into governance structures. New roles should be formally defined, including AI Product Owners who manage AI system lifecycles, Model Risk Managers who assess AI-specific threats, and Ethics Reviewers who evaluate fairness and bias concerns. Creating an AI Risk Subcommittee that reports to the existing ISMS steering committee ensures integration without fragmenting governance.
Managing AI Models as Information Assets
AI models and their associated components must be incorporated into existing asset inventory and change management processes. Each model should be registered with comprehensive metadata including training data lineage and provenance, intended purpose with performance metrics and known limitations, complete version history and deployment records, and clear ownership assignments. Organizations should leverage their existing ISMS Change Management processes to govern AI model updates, retraining cycles, and deprecation decisions, treating models with the same rigor as other critical information assets.
Aligning ISO 42001 and ISO 27001 Control Frameworks
To avoid duplication and reduce audit burden, organizations should create detailed mapping matrices between ISO 42001 and ISO 27001 Annex A controls. Many controls have significant overlap—for instance, ISO 42001’s AI Risk Management controls (A.5.2) extend existing ISO 27001 risk assessment and treatment controls (A.6 & A.8), while AI System Development requirements (A.6.1) build upon ISO 27001’s secure development lifecycle controls (A.14). By identifying these overlaps, organizations can implement unified controls that satisfy both standards simultaneously, documenting the integration for auditor review.
Incorporating AI into Security Awareness Training
Security awareness programs must evolve to address AI-specific risks that employees encounter daily. Training modules should cover responsible AI use policies and guidelines, prompt safety practices to prevent data leakage through AI interactions, recognition of bias and fairness concerns in AI outputs, and practical decision-making scenarios such as “Is it acceptable to input confidential client data into ChatGPT?” Organizations can extend existing learning management systems and awareness campaigns rather than building separate AI training programs, ensuring consistent messaging and compliance tracking.
Auditing AI Governance Implementation
Internal audit programs should be expanded to include AI-specific checkpoints alongside traditional ISMS audit activities. Auditors should verify AI model approval and deployment processes, review documentation demonstrating bias testing and fairness assessments, investigate shadow AI discovery and remediation efforts, and examine dataset security and access controls throughout the AI lifecycle. Rather than creating separate audit streams, organizations should integrate AI-specific controls into existing ISMS audit checklists for each process area, ensuring comprehensive coverage during regular audit cycles.
My Perspective
This integration approach represents exactly the right strategy for organizations navigating AI governance. Having worked extensively with both ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 implementations, I’ve seen firsthand how creating parallel governance structures leads to confusion, duplicated effort, and audit fatigue. The Rivedix framework correctly emphasizes building upon existing ISMS foundations rather than starting from scratch.
What particularly resonates is the focus on shadow AI risks and the practical awareness training recommendations. In my experience at DISC InfoSec and through ShareVault’s certification journey, the biggest AI governance gaps aren’t technical controls—they’re human behavior patterns where well-meaning employees inadvertently expose sensitive data through ChatGPT, Claude, or other LLMs because they lack clear guidance. The “47 controls you’re missing” concept between ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 provides excellent positioning for explaining why AI-specific governance matters to executives who already think their ISMS “covers everything.”
The mapping matrix approach (point 6) is essential but often overlooked. Without clear documentation showing how ISO 42001 requirements are satisfied through existing ISO 27001 controls plus AI-specific extensions, organizations end up with duplicate controls, conflicting procedures, and confused audit findings. ShareVault’s approach of treating AI systems as first-class assets in our existing change management processes has proven far more sustainable than maintaining separate AI and IT change processes.
If I were to add one element this guide doesn’t emphasize enough, it would be the importance of continuous monitoring and metrics. Organizations should establish AI-specific KPIs—model drift detection, bias metric trends, shadow AI discovery rates, training data lineage coverage—that feed into existing ISMS dashboards and management review processes. This ensures AI governance remains visible and accountable rather than becoming a compliance checkbox exercise.
At DISC InfoSec, we help organizations navigate this landscape by aligning AI risk management, governance, security, and compliance into a single, practical roadmap. Whether you are experimenting with AI or deploying it at scale, we help you choose and operationalize the right frameworks to reduce risk and build trust. Learn more at DISC InfoSec.
ISO 27001: Information Security Management Systems
Overview and Purpose
ISO 27001 represents the international standard for Information Security Management Systems (ISMS), establishing a comprehensive framework that enables organizations to systematically identify, manage, and reduce information security risks. The standard applies universally to all types of information, whether digital or physical, making it relevant across industries and organizational sizes. By adopting ISO 27001, organizations demonstrate their commitment to protecting sensitive data and maintaining robust security practices that align with global best practices.
Core Security Principles
The foundation of ISO 27001 rests on three fundamental principles known as the CIA Triad. Confidentiality ensures that information remains accessible only to authorized individuals, preventing unauthorized disclosure. Integrity maintains the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of data throughout its lifecycle. Availability guarantees that information and systems remain accessible when required by authorized users. These principles work together to create a holistic approach to information security, with additional emphasis on risk-based approaches and continuous improvement as essential methodologies for maintaining effective security controls.
Evolution from 2013 to 2022
The transition from ISO 27001:2013 to ISO 27001:2022 brought significant updates to the standard’s control framework. The 2013 version organized controls into 14 domains covering 114 individual controls, while the 2022 revision restructured these into 93 controls across 4 domains, eliminating fragmented controls and introducing new requirements. The updated version shifted from compliance-driven, static risk treatment to dynamic risk management, placed greater emphasis on business continuity and organizational resilience, and introduced entirely new controls addressing modern threats such as threat intelligence, ICT readiness, data masking, secure coding, cloud security, and web filtering.
Implementation Methodology
Implementing ISO 27001 follows a structured cycle beginning with defining the scope by identifying boundaries, assets, and stakeholders. Organizations then conduct thorough risk assessments to identify threats, vulnerabilities, and map risks to affected assets and business processes. This leads to establishing ISMS policies that set security objectives and demonstrate organizational commitment. The cycle continues with sustaining and monitoring through internal and external audits, implementing security controls with protective strategies, and maintaining continuous monitoring and review of risks while implementing ongoing security improvements.
Risk Assessment Framework
The risk assessment process comprises several critical stages that form the backbone of ISO 27001 compliance. Organizations must first establish scope by determining which information assets and risk assessment criteria require protection, considering impact, likelihood, and risk levels. The identification phase requires cataloging potential threats, vulnerabilities, and mapping risks to affected assets and business processes. Analysis and evaluation involve determining likelihood and assessing impact including financial exposure, reputational damage, and utilizing risk matrices. Finally, defining risk treatment plans requires selecting appropriate responses—avoiding, mitigating, transferring, or accepting risks—documenting treatment actions, assigning teams, and establishing timelines.
Security Incident Management
ISO 27001 requires a systematic approach to handling security incidents through a four-stage process. Organizations must first assess incidents by identifying their type and impact. The containment phase focuses on stopping further damage and limiting exposure. Restoration and securing involves taking corrective actions to return to normal operations. Throughout this process, organizations must notify affected parties and inform users about potential risks, report incidents to authorities, and follow legal and regulatory requirements. This structured approach ensures consistent, effective responses that minimize damage and facilitate learning from security events.
Key Security Principles in Practice
The standard emphasizes several operational security principles that organizations must embed into their daily practices. Access control restricts unauthorized access to systems and data. Data encryption protects sensitive information both at rest and in transit. Incident response planning ensures readiness for cyber threats and establishes clear protocols for handling breaches. Employee awareness maintains accurate and up-to-date personnel data, ensuring staff understand their security responsibilities. Audit and compliance checks involve regular assessments for continuous improvement, verifying that controls remain effective and aligned with organizational objectives.
Data Security and Privacy Measures
ISO 27001 requires comprehensive data protection measures spanning multiple areas. Data encryption involves implementing encryption techniques to protect personal data from unauthorized access. Access controls restrict system access based on least privilege and role-based access control (RBAC). Regular data backups maintain copies of personal data to prevent loss or corruption, adding an extra layer of protection by requiring multiple forms of authentication before granting access. These measures work together to create defense-in-depth, ensuring that even if one control fails, others remain in place to protect sensitive information.
Common Audit Issues and Remediation
Organizations frequently encounter specific challenges during ISO 27001 audits that require attention. Lack of risk assessment remains a critical issue, requiring organizations to conduct and document thorough risk analysis. Weak access controls necessitate implementing strong, password-protected policies and role-based access along with regularly updated systems. Outdated security systems require regular updates to operating systems, applications, and firmware to address known vulnerabilities. Lack of security awareness demands conducting periodic employee training to ensure staff understand their roles in maintaining security and can recognize potential threats.
Benefits and Business Value
Achieving ISO 27001 certification delivers substantial organizational benefits beyond compliance. Cost savings result from reducing the financial impact of security breaches through proactive prevention. Preparedness encourages organizations to regularly review and update their ISMS, maintaining readiness for evolving threats. Coverage ensures comprehensive protection across all information types, digital and physical. Attracting business opportunities becomes easier as certification showcases commitment to information security, providing competitive advantages and meeting client requirements, particularly in regulated industries where ISO 27001 is increasingly expected or required.
My Opinion
This post on ISO 27001 provides a remarkably comprehensive overview that captures both the structural elements and practical implications of the standard. I find the comparison between the 2013 and 2022 versions particularly valuable—it highlights how the standard has evolved to address modern threats like cloud security, data masking, and threat intelligence, demonstrating ISO’s responsiveness to the changing cybersecurity landscape.
The emphasis on dynamic risk management over static compliance represents a crucial shift in thinking that aligns with your work at DISC InfoSec. The idea that organizations must continuously assess and adapt rather than simply check boxes resonates with your perspective that “skipping layers in governance while accelerating layers in capability is where most AI risk emerges.” ISO 27001:2022’s focus on business continuity and organizational resilience similarly reflects the need for governance frameworks that can flex and scale alongside technological capability.
What I find most compelling is how the framework acknowledges that security is fundamentally about business enablement rather than obstacle creation. The benefits section appropriately positions ISO 27001 certification as a business differentiator and cost-reduction strategy, not merely a compliance burden. For our ShareVault implementation and DISC InfoSec consulting practice, this framing helps bridge the gap between technical security requirements and executive business concerns—making the case that robust information security management is an investment in organizational capability and market positioning rather than overhead.
The document could be strengthened by more explicitly addressing the integration challenges between ISO 27001 and emerging AI governance frameworks like ISO 42001, which represents the next frontier for organizations seeking comprehensive risk management across both traditional and AI-augmented systems.
Download A Comprehensive Framwork for Modern Organizations
At DISC InfoSec, we help organizations navigate this landscape by aligning AI risk management, governance, security, and compliance into a single, practical roadmap. Whether you are experimenting with AI or deploying it at scale, we help you choose and operationalize the right frameworks to reduce risk and build trust. Learn more at DISC InfoSec.
Zero Trust Security is a security model that assumes no user, device, workload, application, or network is inherently trusted, whether inside or outside the traditional perimeter.
The core principles reflected in the image are:
Never trust, always verify – every access request must be authenticated, authorized, and continuously evaluated.
Least privilege access – users and systems only get the minimum access required.
Assume breach – design controls as if attackers are already present.
Continuous monitoring and enforcement – security decisions are dynamic, not one-time.
Instead of relying on perimeter defenses, Zero Trust distributes controls across endpoints, identities, APIs, networks, data, applications, and cloud environments—exactly the seven domains shown in the diagram.
2. The Seven Components of Zero Trust
1. Endpoint Security
Purpose: Ensure only trusted, compliant devices can access resources.
Key controls shown:
Antivirus / Anti-Malware
Endpoint Detection & Response (EDR)
Patch Management
Device Control
Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
Mobile Device Management (MDM)
Encryption
Threat Intelligence Integration
Zero Trust intent: Access decisions depend on device posture, not just identity.
2. API Security
Purpose: Protect machine-to-machine and application integrations.
Key controls shown:
Authentication & Authorization
API Gateways
Rate Limiting
Encryption (at rest & in transit)
Threat Detection & Monitoring
Input Validation
API Keys & Tokens
Secure Development Practices
Zero Trust intent: Every API call is explicitly authenticated, authorized, and inspected.
3. Network Security
Purpose: Eliminate implicit trust within networks.
Key controls shown:
IDS / IPS
Network Access Control (NAC)
Network Segmentation / Micro-segmentation
SSL / TLS
VPN
Firewalls
Traffic Analysis & Anomaly Detection
Zero Trust intent: The network is treated as hostile, even internally.
4. Data Security
Purpose: Protect data regardless of location.
Key controls shown:
Encryption (at rest & in transit)
Data Masking
Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
Access Controls
Backup & Recovery
Data Integrity Verification
Tokenization
Zero Trust intent: Security follows the data, not the infrastructure.
5. Cloud Security
Purpose: Enforce Zero Trust in shared-responsibility environments.
Key controls shown:
Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB)
Data Encryption
Identity & Access Management (IAM)
Security Posture Management
Continuous Compliance Monitoring
Cloud Identity Federation
Cloud Security Audits
Zero Trust intent: No cloud service is trusted by default—visibility and control are mandatory.
6. Application Security
Purpose: Prevent application-layer exploitation.
Key controls shown:
Secure Code Review
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
API Security
Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP)
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
Secure SDLC
SAST / DAST
Zero Trust intent: Applications must continuously prove they are secure and uncompromised.
7. IoT Security
Purpose: Secure non-traditional and unmanaged devices.
Key controls shown:
Device Authentication
Network Segmentation
Secure Firmware Updates
Encryption for IoT Data
Anomaly Detection
Vulnerability Management
Device Lifecycle Management
Secure Boot
Zero Trust intent: IoT devices are high-risk by default and strictly controlled.
3. Mapping Zero Trust Controls to ISO/IEC 27001
Below is a practical mapping to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 (Annex A). (Zero Trust is not a standard, but it maps very cleanly to ISO controls.)
Identity, Authentication & Access (Core Zero Trust)
Zero Trust domains: API, Cloud, Network, Application ISO 27001 controls:
A.5.15 – Access control
A.5.16 – Identity management
A.5.17 – Authentication information
A.5.18 – Access rights
Endpoint & Device Security
Zero Trust domain: Endpoint, IoT ISO 27001 controls:
A.8.1 – User endpoint devices
A.8.7 – Protection against malware
A.8.8 – Management of technical vulnerabilities
A.5.9 – Inventory of information and assets
Network Security & Segmentation
Zero Trust domain: Network ISO 27001 controls:
A.8.20 – Network security
A.8.21 – Security of network services
A.8.22 – Segregation of networks
A.5.14 – Information transfer
Application & API Security
Zero Trust domain: Application, API ISO 27001 controls:
A.8.25 – Secure development lifecycle
A.8.26 – Application security requirements
A.8.27 – Secure system architecture
A.8.28 – Secure coding
A.8.29 – Security testing in development
Data Protection & Cryptography
Zero Trust domain: Data ISO 27001 controls:
A.8.10 – Information deletion
A.8.11 – Data masking
A.8.12 – Data leakage prevention
A.8.13 – Backup
A.8.24 – Use of cryptography
Monitoring, Detection & Response
Zero Trust domain: Endpoint, Network, Cloud ISO 27001 controls:
A.8.15 – Logging
A.8.16 – Monitoring activities
A.5.24 – Incident management planning
A.5.25 – Assessment and decision on incidents
A.5.26 – Response to information security incidents
Cloud & Third-Party Security
Zero Trust domain: Cloud ISO 27001 controls:
A.5.19 – Information security in supplier relationships
A.5.20 – Addressing security in supplier agreements
A.5.21 – ICT supply chain security
A.5.22 – Monitoring supplier services
4. Key Takeaway (Executive Summary)
Zero Trust is an architecture and mindset
ISO 27001 is a management system and control framework
Zero Trust implements ISO 27001 controls in a continuous, adaptive, and identity-centric way
In short:
ISO 27001 defines what controls you need. Zero Trust defines how to enforce them effectively.
Zero Trust → ISO/IEC 27001 Crosswalk
Zero Trust Domain
Primary Security Controls
Zero Trust Objective
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A Controls
Identity & Access (Core ZT Layer)
IAM, MFA, RBAC, API auth, token-based access, least privilege
Ensure every access request is explicitly verified
A.5.15 Access control A.5.16 Identity management A.5.17 Authentication information A.5.18 Access rights
Endpoint Security
EDR, AV, MDM, patching, device posture checks, disk encryption
Allow access only from trusted and compliant devices
A.8.1 User endpoint devices A.8.7 Protection against malware A.8.8 Technical vulnerability management A.5.9 Inventory of information and assets
At DISC InfoSec, we help organizations navigate this landscape by aligning AI risk management, governance, security, and compliance into a single, practical roadmap. Whether you are experimenting with AI or deploying it at scale, we help you choose and operationalize the right frameworks to reduce risk and build trust. Learn more at DISC InfoSec.
The report highlights that defining AI remains challenging due to evolving technology and inconsistent usage of the term. To stay practical, ENISA focuses mainly on machine learning (ML), as it dominates current AI deployments and introduces unique security vulnerabilities. AI is considered across its entire lifecycle, from data collection and model training to deployment and operation, recognizing that risks can emerge at any stage.
Cybersecurity of AI is framed in two ways. The narrow view focuses on protecting confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA) of AI systems, data, and processes. The broader view expands this to include trustworthiness attributes such as robustness, explainability, transparency, and data quality. ENISA adopts the narrow definition but acknowledges that trustworthiness and cybersecurity are tightly interconnected and cannot be treated independently.
3. Standardisation Supporting AI Cybersecurity
Standardisation bodies are actively adapting existing frameworks and developing new ones to address AI-related risks. The report emphasizes ISO/IEC, CEN-CENELEC, and ETSI as the most relevant organisations due to their role in harmonised standards. A key assumption is that AI is fundamentally software, meaning traditional information security and quality standards can often be extended to AI with proper guidance.
CEN-CENELEC separates responsibilities between cybersecurity-focused committees and AI-focused ones, while ETSI takes a more technical, threat-driven approach through its Security of AI (SAI) group. ISO/IEC SC 42 plays a central role globally by developing AI-specific standards for terminology, lifecycle management, risk management, and governance. Despite this activity, the landscape remains fragmented and difficult to navigate.
4. Analysis of Coverage – Narrow Cybersecurity Sense
When viewed through the CIA lens, AI systems face distinct threats such as model theft, data poisoning, adversarial inputs, and denial-of-service via computational abuse. The report argues that existing standards like ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 27002, ISO 42001, and ISO 9001 can mitigate many of these risks if adapted correctly to AI contexts.
However, limitations exist. Most standards operate at an organisational level, while AI risks are often system-specific. Challenges such as opaque ML models, evolving attack techniques, continuous learning, and immature defensive research reduce the effectiveness of static standards. Major gaps remain around data and model traceability, metrics for robustness, and runtime monitoring, all of which are critical for AI security.
4.2 Coverage – Trustworthiness Perspective
The report explains that cybersecurity both enables and depends on AI trustworthiness. Requirements from the draft AI Act—such as data governance, logging, transparency, human oversight, risk management, and robustness—are all supported by cybersecurity controls. Standards like ISO 9001 and ISO/IEC 31000 indirectly strengthen trustworthiness by enforcing disciplined governance and quality practices.
Yet, ENISA warns of a growing risk: parallel standardisation tracks for cybersecurity and AI trustworthiness may lead to duplication, inconsistency, and confusion—especially in areas like conformity assessment and robustness evaluation. A coordinated, unified approach is strongly recommended to ensure coherence and regulatory usability.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations (5.1–5.2)
The report concludes that while many relevant standards already exist, AI-specific guidance, integration, and maturity are still lacking. Organisations should not wait for perfect AI standards but instead adapt current cybersecurity, quality, and risk frameworks to AI use cases. Standards bodies are encouraged to close gaps around lifecycle traceability, continuous learning, and AI-specific metrics.
In preparation for the AI Act, ENISA recommends better alignment between AI governance and cybersecurity governance frameworks to avoid overlapping compliance efforts. The report stresses that some gaps will only become visible as AI technologies and attack methods continue to evolve.
My Opinion
This report gets one critical thing right: AI security is not a brand-new problem—it is a complex extension of existing cybersecurity and governance challenges. Treating AI as “just another system” under ISO 27001 without AI-specific interpretation is dangerous, but reinventing security from scratch for AI is equally inefficient.
From a practical vCISO and governance perspective, the real gap is not standards—it is operationalisation. Organisations struggle to translate abstract AI trustworthiness principles into enforceable controls, metrics, and assurance evidence. Until standards converge into a clear, unified control model (especially aligned with ISO 27001, ISO 42001, and the NIST AI RMF), AI security will remain fragmented and audit-driven rather than risk-driven.
In short: AI cybersecurity maturity will lag unless governance, security, and trustworthiness are treated as one integrated discipline—not three separate conversations.
At DISC InfoSec, we help organizations navigate this landscape by aligning AI risk management, governance, security, and compliance into a single, practical roadmap. Whether you are experimenting with AI or deploying it at scale, we help you choose and operationalize the right frameworks to reduce risk and build trust. Learn more at DISC InfoSec.
In developing organizational risk documentation—such as enterprise risk registers, cyber risk assessments, and business continuity plans—it is increasingly important to consider the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report. The report provides a forward-looking view of global threats and helps leaders balance immediate pressures with longer-term strategic risks.
The analysis is based on the Global Risks Perception Survey (GRPS), which gathered insights from more than 1,300 experts across government, business, academia, and civil society. These perspectives allow the report to examine risks across three time horizons: the immediate term (2026), the short-to-medium term (up to 2028), and the long term (to 2036).
One of the most pressing short-term threats identified is geopolitical instability. Rising geopolitical tensions, regional conflicts, and fragmentation of global cooperation are increasing uncertainty for businesses. These risks can disrupt supply chains, trigger sanctions, and increase regulatory and operational complexity across borders.
Economic risks remain central across all timeframes. Inflation volatility, debt distress, slow economic growth, and potential financial system shocks pose ongoing threats to organizational stability. In the medium term, widening inequality and reduced economic opportunity could further amplify social and political instability.
Cyber and technological risks continue to grow in scale and impact. Cybercrime, ransomware, data breaches, and misuse of emerging technologies—particularly artificial intelligence—are seen as major short- and long-term risks. As digital dependency increases, failures in technology governance or third-party ecosystems can cascade quickly across industries.
The report also highlights misinformation and disinformation as a critical threat. The erosion of trust in institutions, fueled by false or manipulated information, can destabilize societies, influence elections, and undermine crisis response efforts. This risk is amplified by AI-driven content generation and social media scale.
Climate and environmental risks dominate the long-term outlook but are already having immediate effects. Extreme weather events, resource scarcity, and biodiversity loss threaten infrastructure, supply chains, and food security. Organizations face increasing exposure to physical risks as well as regulatory and reputational pressures related to sustainability.
Public health risks remain relevant, even as the world moves beyond recent pandemics. Future outbreaks, combined with strained healthcare systems and global inequities in access to care, could create significant economic and operational disruptions, particularly in densely connected global markets.
Another growing concern is social fragmentation, including polarization, declining social cohesion, and erosion of trust. These factors can lead to civil unrest, labor disruptions, and increased pressure on organizations to navigate complex social and ethical expectations.
Overall, the report emphasizes that global risks are deeply interconnected. Cyber incidents can amplify economic instability, climate events can worsen geopolitical tensions, and misinformation can undermine responses to every other risk category. For organizations, the key takeaway is clear: risk management must be integrated, forward-looking, and resilience-focused—not siloed or purely compliance-driven.
Source: The report can be downloaded here: https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2026.pdf
Below is a clear, practitioner-level mapping of the World Economic Forum (WEF) global threats to ISO/IEC 27001, written for CISOs, vCISOs, risk owners, and auditors. I’ve mapped each threat to key ISO 27001 clauses and Annex A control themes (aligned to ISO/IEC 27001:2022).
WEF Global Threats → ISO/IEC 27001 Mapping
1. Geopolitical Instability & Conflict
Risk impact: Sanctions, supply-chain disruption, regulatory uncertainty, cross-border data issues
ISO 27001 Mapping
Clause 4.1 – Understanding the organization and its context
Clause 6.1 – Actions to address risks and opportunities
Annex A
A.5.31 – Legal, statutory, regulatory, and contractual requirements
Risk impact: Compound failures across cyber, economic, and operational domains
ISO 27001 Mapping
Clause 6.1 – Risk-based thinking
Clause 9.1 – Monitoring, measurement, analysis, and evaluation
Clause 10.1 – Continual improvement
Annex A
A.5.7 – Threat intelligence
A.5.35 – Independent review of information security
A.8.16 – Continuous monitoring
Key Takeaway (vCISO / Board-Level)
ISO 27001 is not just a cybersecurity standard — it is a resilience framework. When properly implemented, it directly addresses the systemic, interconnected risks highlighted by the World Economic Forum, provided organizations treat it as a living risk management system, not a compliance checkbox.
Here’s a practical mapping of WEF global risks to ISO 27001 risk register entries, designed for use by vCISOs, risk managers, or security teams. I’ve structured it in a way that you could directly drop into a risk register template.
At DISC InfoSec, we help organizations navigate this landscape by aligning AI risk management, governance, security, and compliance into a single, practical roadmap. Whether you are experimenting with AI or deploying it at scale, we help you choose and operationalize the right frameworks to reduce risk and build trust. Learn more at DISC InfoSec.
The CISO role is evolving rapidly between now and 2035. Traditional security responsibilities—like managing firewalls and monitoring networks—are only part of the picture. CISOs must increasingly operate as strategic business leaders, integrating security into enterprise-wide decision-making and aligning risk management with business objectives.
Boards and CEOs will have higher expectations for security leaders in the next decade. They will look for CISOs who can clearly communicate risks in business terms, drive organizational resilience, and contribute to strategic initiatives rather than just react to incidents. Leadership influence will matter as much as technical expertise.
Technical excellence alone is no longer enough. While deep security knowledge remains critical, modern CISOs must combine it with business acumen, emotional intelligence, and the ability to navigate complex organizational dynamics. The most successful security leaders bridge the gap between technology and business impact.
World-class CISOs are building leadership capabilities today that go beyond technology management. This includes shaping corporate culture around security, influencing cross-functional decisions, mentoring teams, and advocating for proactive risk governance. These skills ensure they remain central to enterprise success.
Common traps quietly derail otherwise strong CISOs. Focusing too narrowly on technical issues, failing to communicate effectively with executives, or neglecting stakeholder relationships can limit influence and career growth. Awareness of these pitfalls allows security leaders to avoid them and maintain credibility.
Future-proofing your role and influence is now essential. AI is transforming the security landscape. For CISOs, AI means automated threat detection, predictive risk analytics, and new ethical and regulatory considerations. Responsibilities like routine monitoring may fade, while oversight of AI-driven systems, data governance, and strategic security leadership will intensify. The question is no longer whether CISOs understand AI—it’s whether they are prepared to lead in an AI-driven organization, ensuring security remains a core enabler of business objectives.
At DISC InfoSec, we help organizations navigate this landscape by aligning AI risk management, governance, security, and compliance into a single, practical roadmap. Whether you are experimenting with AI or deploying it at scale, we help you choose and operationalize the right frameworks to reduce risk and build trust. Learn more at DISC InfoSec.
ISO 27001 is frequently misunderstood, and this misunderstanding is a major reason many organizations struggle even after achieving certification. The standard is often treated as a technical security guide, when in reality it is not designed to explain how to secure systems.
At its core, ISO 27001 defines the management system for information security. It focuses on governance, leadership responsibility, risk ownership, and accountability rather than technical implementation details.
The standard answers the question of what must exist in an organization: clear policies, defined roles, risk-based decision-making, and management oversight for information security.
ISO 27002, on the other hand, plays a very different role. It is not a certification standard and does not make an organization compliant on its own.
Instead, ISO 27002 provides practical guidance and best practices for implementing security controls. It explains how controls can be designed, deployed, and operated effectively.
However, ISO 27002 only delivers value when strong governance already exists. Without the structure defined by ISO 27001, control guidance becomes fragmented and inconsistently applied.
A useful way to think about the relationship is simple: ISO 27001 defines governance and accountability, while ISO 27002 supports control implementation and operational execution.
In practice, many organizations make the mistake of deploying tools and controls first, without establishing clear ownership and risk accountability. This often leads to audit findings despite significant security investments.
Controls rarely fail on their own. When controls break down, the root cause is usually weak governance, unclear responsibilities, or poor risk decision-making rather than technical shortcomings.
When used together, ISO 27001 and ISO 27002 go beyond helping organizations pass audits. They strengthen risk management, improve audit outcomes, and build long-term trust with regulators, customers, and stakeholders.
My opinion: The real difference between ISO 27001 and ISO 27002 is the difference between certification and security maturity. Organizations that chase controls without governance may pass short-term checks but remain fragile. True resilience comes when leadership owns risk, governance drives decisions, and controls are implemented as a consequence—not a substitute—for accountability.
At DISC InfoSec, we help organizations navigate this landscape by aligning AI risk management, governance, security, and compliance into a single, practical roadmap. Whether you are experimenting with AI or deploying it at scale, we help you choose and operationalize the right frameworks to reduce risk and build trust. Learn more at DISC InfoSec.
A CISO must design and operate a security governance model that aligns with corporate governance, regulatory requirements, and the organization’s risk appetite. This ensures security controls are consistent, auditable, and defensible. Without strong governance, organizations face regulatory penalties, audit failures, and fragmented or overlapping controls that create risk instead of reducing it.
2. Cybersecurity Maturity Management
The CISO should continuously assess the organization’s security posture using recognized maturity models such as NIST CSF or ISO 27001, and define a clear target state. This capability enables prioritization of investments and long-term improvement. Lacking maturity management leads to reactive, ad-hoc spending and an inability to justify or sequence security initiatives.
3. Incident Response (Response Readiness)
A core responsibility of the CISO is ensuring the organization is prepared for incidents through tested playbooks, simulations, and war-gaming. Effective response readiness minimizes impact when breaches occur. Without it, detection is slow, downtime is extended, and financial and reputational damage escalates rapidly.
The CISO must ensure the organization can rapidly detect threats, alert the right teams, and automate responses where possible. Strong SOC and SOAR capabilities reduce mean time to detect (MTTD) and mean time to respond (MTTR). Weakness here results in undetected breaches, slow manual responses, and delayed forensic investigations.
5. Business & Financial Acumen
A modern CISO must connect cyber risk to business outcomes—revenue, margins, valuation, and enterprise risk. This includes articulating ROI, payback, and value creation. Without this skill, security is viewed purely as a cost center, and investments fail to align with business strategy.
6. Risk Communication
The CISO must translate complex technical risks into clear, business-impact narratives that boards and executives can act on. Effective risk communication enables informed decision-making. When this capability is weak, risks remain misunderstood or hidden until a major incident forces attention.
7. Culture & Cross-Functional Leadership
A successful CISO builds strong security teams, fosters a security-aware culture, and collaborates across IT, legal, finance, product, and operations. Security cannot succeed in silos. Poor leadership here leads to misaligned priorities, weak adoption of controls, and ineffective onboarding of new staff into security practices.
My Opinion: The Three Most Important Capabilities
If forced to prioritize, the top three are:
Risk Communication If the board does not understand risk, no other capability matters. Funding, priorities, and executive decisions all depend on how well the CISO communicates risk in business terms.
Governance Oversight Governance is the foundation. Without it, security efforts are fragmented, compliance fails, and accountability is unclear. Strong governance enables everything else to function coherently.
Incident Response (Response Readiness) Breaches are inevitable. What separates resilient organizations from failed ones is how well they respond. Preparation directly limits financial, operational, and reputational damage.
Bottom line: Technology matters, but leadership, governance, and communication are what boards ultimately expect from a CISO. Tools support these capabilities—they don’t replace them.
At DISC InfoSec, we help organizations navigate this landscape by aligning AI risk management, governance, security, and compliance into a single, practical roadmap. Whether you are experimenting with AI or deploying it at scale, we help you choose and operationalize the right frameworks to reduce risk and build trust. Learn more at DISC InfoSec.
GRC Solutions offers a collection of self-assessment and gap analysis tools designed to help organisations evaluate their current compliance and risk posture across a variety of standards and regulations. These tools let you measure how well your existing policies, controls, and processes match expectations before you start a full compliance project.
Several tools focus on ISO standards, such as ISO 27001:2022 and ISO 27002 (information security controls), which help you identify where your security management system aligns or falls short of the standard’s requirements. Similar gap analysis tools are available for ISO 27701 (privacy information management) and ISO 9001 (quality management).
For data protection and privacy, there are GDPR-related assessment tools to gauge readiness against the EU General Data Protection Regulation. These help you see where your data handling and privacy measures require improvement or documentation before progressing with compliance work.
The Cyber Essentials Gap Analysis Tool is geared toward organisations preparing for this basic but influential UK cybersecurity certification. It offers a simple way to assess the maturity of your cyber controls relative to the Cyber Essentials criteria.
Tools also cover specialised areas such as PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard), including a self-assessment questionnaire tool to help identify how your card-payment practices align with PCI requirements.
There are industry-specific and sector-tailored assessment tools too, such as versions of the GDPR gap assessment tailored for legal sector organisations and schools, recognising that different environments have different compliance nuances.
Broader compliance topics like the EU Cloud Code of Conduct and UK privacy regulations (e.g., PECR) are supported with gap assessment or self-assessment tools. These allow you to review relevant controls and practices in line with the respective frameworks.
A NIST Gap Assessment Tool helps organisations benchmark against the National Institute of Standards and Technology framework, while a DORA Gap Analysis Tool addresses preparedness for digital operational resilience regulations impacting financial institutions.
Beyond regulatory compliance, the catalogue includes items like a Business Continuity Risk Management Pack and standards-related gap tools (e.g., BS 31111), offering flexibility for organisations to diagnose gaps in broader risk and continuity planning areas as well.
When a $3K “cybersecurity gap assessment” reveals you don’t actually have cybersecurity to assess…
A prospect just reached out wanting to pay me $3,000 to assess their ISO 27001 readiness.
Here’s how that conversation went:
Me: “Can you share your security policies and procedures?” Them: “We don’t have any.”
Me: “How about your latest penetration test, vulnerability scans, or cloud security assessments?” Them: “Nothing.”
Me: “What about your asset inventory, vendor register, or risk assessments?” Them: “We haven’t done those.”
Me: “Have you conducted any vendor security due diligence or data privacy reviews?” Them: “No.”
Me: “Let’s try HR—employee contracts, job descriptions, onboarding/offboarding procedures?” Them: “It’s all ad hoc. Nothing formal.”
Here’s the problem: You can’t assess what doesn’t exist.
It’s like subscribing to a maintenance plan for an appliance you don’t own yet
The reality? Many organizations confuse “having IT systems” with “having cybersecurity.” They’re running business-critical operations with zero security foundation—no documentation, no testing, no governance.
What they actually need isn’t an assessment. It’s a security program built from the ground up.
ISO 27001 compliance isn’t a checkbox exercise. It requires: âś“ Documented policies and risk management processes âś“ Regular security testing and validation âś“ Asset and vendor management frameworks âś“ HR security controls and awareness training
If you’re in this situation, here’s my advice: Don’t waste money on assessments. Invest in building foundational security controls first. Then assess.
What’s your take? Have you encountered organizations confusing security assessment with security implementation?
Here are some of the main benefits of using Burp Suite Professional — specifically from the perspective of a professional services consultant doing security assessments, penetration testing, or audits for clients. I highlight where Burp Pro gives real value in a professional consulting context.
✅ Why consultants often prefer Burp Suite Professional
Comprehensive, all-in-one toolkit for web-app testing Burp Pro bundles proxying, crawling/spidering, vulnerability scanning, request replay/manipulation, fuzzing/brute forcing, token/sequence analysis, and more — all in a single product. This lets a consultant perform full-scope web application assessments without needing to stitch together many standalone tools.
Automated scanning + manual testing — balanced for real-world audits As a consultant you often need to combine speed (to scan large or complex applications) and depth (to manually investigate subtle issues or business-logic flaws). Burp Pro’s automated scanner quickly highlights many common flaws (e.g. SQLi, XSS, insecure configs), while its manual tools (proxy, repeater, intruder, etc.) allow fine-grained verification and advanced exploitation.
Discovery of “hidden” or non-obvious issues / attack surfaces The crawler/spider + discovery features help map out a target application’s entire attack surface — including hidden endpoints, unlinked pages or API endpoints — which consultants need to find when doing thorough security reviews.
Flexibility for complex or modern web apps (APIs, SPAs, WebSockets, etc.) Many modern applications use single-page frameworks, APIs, WebSockets, token-based auth, etc. Burp Pro supports testing these complex setups (e.g. handling HTTPS, WebSockets, JSON APIs), enabling consultants to operate effectively even on modern, dynamic web applications.
Extensibility and custom workflows tailored to client needs Through the built-in extension store (the “BApp Store”), and via scripting/custom plugins, consultants can customize Burp Pro to fit the unique architecture or threat model of a client’s environment — which is crucial in professional consulting where every client is different.
Professional-grade reporting & audit deliverables Consultants often need to deliver clear, structured, prioritized vulnerability reports to clients or stakeholders. Burp Pro supports detailed reporting, with evidence, severity, context — making it easier to communicate findings and remediation steps.
Efficiency and productivity: saves time and resources By automating large parts of scanning and combining multiple tools in one, Burp Pro helps consultants complete engagements faster — freeing time for deeper manual analysis, more clients, or more thorough work.
Up-to-date detection logic and community / vendor support As new web-app vulnerabilities and attack vectors emerge, Burp Pro (supported by its vendor and community) gets updates and new detection logic — which helps consultants stay current and offer reliable security assessments.
🚨 React2Shell detection is now available in Burp Suite Professional & Burp Suite DAST.
🎯 What this enables in a Consulting / Professional Services Context
Using Burp Suite Professional allows a consultant to:
Provide comprehensive security audits covering a broad attack surface — from standard web pages to APIs, dynamic front-ends, and even modern client-side logic.
Combine fast automated scanning with deep manual review, giving confidence that both common and subtle or business-logic vulnerabilities are identified.
Deliver clear, actionable reports and remediation guidance — a must when working with clients or stakeholders who need to understand risk and prioritize fixes.
Adapt quickly to different client environments — thanks to extensions, custom workflows, and configurability.
Scale testing work: for example, map and scan large applications efficiently, then focus consultant time on validating and exploiting deeper issues rather than chasing basic ones.
Maintain a professional standard of work — many clients expect usage of recognized tools, reproducible evidence, and thorough testing, all of which Burp Pro supports.
✅ Summary — Pro version pays off in consulting work
For a security consultant, Burp Suite Professional isn’t just a “nice to have” — it often becomes a core piece of the toolset. Its mix of automation, manual flexibility, extensibility, and reporting makes it highly suitable for professional-grade penetration testing, audits, and security assessments. While there are other tools out there, the breadth and polish of Burp Pro tends to make it “default standard” in many consulting engagements.
At DISC InfoSec, we provide comprehensive security audits that cover your entire digital attack surface — from standard web pages to APIs, dynamic front-ends, and even modern client-side logic. Our expert team not only identifies vulnerabilities but also delivers a tailored mitigation plan designed to reduce risks and provide assurance against potential security incidents. With DISC InfoSec, you gain the confidence that your applications and data are protected, while staying ahead of emerging threats.
ISO 42001 (published December 2023) is the first international standard dedicated to how organizations should govern and manage AI systems — whether they build AI, use it, or deploy it in services.
It lays out what the authors call an Artificial Intelligence Management System (AIMS) — a structured governance and management framework that helps companies reduce AI-related risks, build trust, and ensure responsible AI use.
Who can use it — and is it mandatory
Any organization — profit or non-profit, large or small, in any industry — that develops or uses AI can implement ISO 42001.
For now, ISO 42001 is not legally required. No country currently mandates it.
But adopting it proactively can make future compliance with emerging AI laws and regulations easier.
What ISO 42001 requires / how it works
The standard uses a “high-level structure” similar to other well-known frameworks (like ISO 27001), covering organizational context, leadership, planning, support, operations, performance evaluation, and continual improvement.
Organizations need to: define their AI-policy and scope; identify stakeholders and expectations; perform risk and impact assessments (on company level, user level, and societal level); implement controls to mitigate risks; maintain documentation and records; monitor, audit, and review the AI system regularly; and continuously improve.
As part of these requirements, there are 38 example controls (in the standard’s Annex A) that organizations can use to reduce various AI-related risks.
Why it matters
Because AI is powerful but also risky (wrong outputs, bias, privacy leaks, system failures, etc.), having a formal governance framework helps companies be more responsible and transparent when deploying AI.
For organizations that want to build trust with customers, regulators, or partners — or anticipate future AI-related regulations — ISO 42001 can serve as a credible, standardized foundation for AI governance.
My opinion
I think ISO 42001 is a valuable and timely step toward bringing some order and accountability into the rapidly evolving world of AI. Because AI is so flexible and can be used in many different contexts — some of them high-stakes — having a standard framework helps organizations think proactively about risk, ethics, transparency, and responsibility rather than scrambling reactively.
That said — because it’s new and not yet mandatory — its real-world impact depends heavily on how widely it’s adopted. For it to become meaningful beyond “nice to have,” regulators, governments, or large enterprises should encourage or require it (or similar frameworks). Until then, it will likely be adopted mostly by forward-thinking companies or those dealing with high-impact AI systems.
🔎 My view: ISO 42001 is a meaningful first step — but (for now) best seen as a foundation, not a silver bullet
I believe ISO 42001 represents a valuable starting point for bringing structure, accountability, and risk awareness to AI development and deployment. Its emphasis on governance, impact assessment, documentation, and continuous oversight is much needed in a world where AI adoption often runs faster than regulation or best practices.
That said — given its newness, generality, and the typical resource demands — I see it as necessary but not sufficient. It should be viewed as the base layer: useful for building internal discipline, preparing for regulatory demands, and signaling commitment. But to address real-world ethical, social, and technical challenges, organizations likely need additional safeguards — e.g. context-specific controls, ongoing audits, stakeholder engagement, domain-specific reviews, and perhaps even bespoke governance frameworks tailored to the type of AI system and its use cases.
In short: ISO 42001 is a strong first step — but real responsible AI requires going beyond standards to culture, context, and continuous vigilance.
✅ Real-world adopters of ISO 42001
IBM (Granite models)
IBM became “the first major open-source AI model developer to earn ISO 42001 certification,” for its “Granite” family of open-source language models.
The certification covers the management system for development, deployment, and maintenance of Granite — meaning IBM formalized policies, governance, data practices, documentation, and risk controls under AIMS (AI Management System).
According to IBM, the certification provides external assurance of transparency, security, and governance — helping enterprises confidently adopt Granite in sensitive contexts (e.g. regulated industries).
Infosys
Infosys — a global IT services and consulting company — announced in May 2024 that it had received ISO 42001:2023 certification for its AI Management System.
Their certified “AIMS framework” is part of a broader set of offerings (the “Topaz Responsible AI Suite”), which supports clients in building and deploying AI responsibly, with structured risk mitigations and accountability.
This demonstrates that even big consulting companies, not just pure-AI labs, see value in adopting ISO 42001 to manage AI at scale within enterprise services.
JAGGAER (Source-to-Pay / procurement software)
JAGGAER — a global player in procurement / “source-to-pay” software — announced that it achieved ISO 42001 certification for its AI Management System in June 2025.
For JAGGAER, the certification reflects a commitment to ethical, transparent, secure deployment of AI within its procurement platform.
This shows how ISO 42001 can be used not only by AI labs or consultancy firms, but by business-software companies integrating AI into domain-specific applications.
🧠 My take — promising first signals, but still early days
These early adopters make a strong case that ISO 42001 can work in practice across very different kinds of organizations — not just AI-native labs, but enterprises, service providers, even consulting firms. The variety and speed of adoption (multiple firms in 2024–2025) demonstrate real momentum.
At the same time — adoption appears selective, and for many companies, the process may involve minimal compliance effort rather than deep, ongoing governance. Because the standard and the ecosystem (auditors, best-practice references, peer case studies) are both still nascent, there’s a real risk that ISO 42001 becomes more of a “badge” than a strong guardrail.
In short: I see current adoptions as proof-of-concepts — promising early examples showing how ISO 42001 could become an industry baseline. But for it to truly deliver on safe, ethical, responsible AI at scale, we’ll need: more widespread adoption across sectors; shared transparency about governance practices; public reporting on outcomes; and maybe supplementary audits or domain-specific guidelines (especially for high-risk AI uses).
Most organizations think they’re ready for AI governance — until ISO/IEC 42001 shines a light on the gaps. With 47 new AI-specific controls, this standard is quickly becoming the global expectation for responsible and compliant AI deployment. To help teams get ahead, we built a free ISO 42001 Compliance Checklist that gives you a readiness score in under 10 minutes, plus a downloadable gap report you can share internally. It’s a fast way to validate where you stand today and what you’ll need to align with upcoming regulatory and customer requirements. If improving AI trust, risk posture, and audit readiness is on your roadmap, this tool will save your team hours.
In a recent report, researchers at Cato Networks revealed that the “Skills” plug‑in feature of Claude — the AI system developed by Anthropic — can be trivially abused to deploy ransomware.
The exploit involved taking a legitimate, open‑source plug‑in (a “GIF Creator” skill) and subtly modifying it: by inserting a seemingly harmless function that downloads and executes external code, the modified plug‑in can pull in a malicious script (in this case, ransomware) without triggering warnings.
When a user installs and approves such a skill, the plug‑in gains persistent permissions: it can read/write files, download further code, and open outbound connections, all without any additional prompts. That “single‑consent” permission model creates a dangerous consent gap.
In the demonstration by Cato Networks researcher Inga Cherny, they didn’t need deep technical skill — they simply edited the plug‑in, re-uploaded it, and once a single employee approved it, ransomware (specifically MedusaLocker) was deployed. Cherny emphasized that “anyone can do it — you don’t even have to write the code.”
Microsoft and other security watchers have observed that MedusaLocker belongs to a broader, active family of ransomware that has targeted numerous organizations globally, often via exploited vulnerabilities or weaponized tools.
This event marks a disturbing evolution in AI‑related cyber‑threats: attackers are moving beyond simple prompt‑based “jailbreaks” or phishing using generative AI — now they’re hijacking AI platforms themselves as delivery mechanisms for malware, turning automation tools into attack vectors.
It’s also a wake-up call for corporate IT and security teams. As more development teams adopt AI plug‑ins and automation workflows, there’s a growing risk that something as innocuous as a “productivity tool” could conceal a backdoor — and once installed, bypass all typical detection mechanisms under the guise of “trusted” software.
Finally, while the concept of AI‑driven attacks has been discussed for some time, this proof‑of-concept exploit shifts the threat from theoretical to real. It demonstrates how easily AI systems — even those with safety guardrails — can be subverted to perform malicious operations when trust is misplaced or oversight is lacking.
🧠 My Take
This incident highlights a fundamental challenge: as we embrace AI for convenience and automation, we must not forget that the same features enabling productivity can be twisted into attack vectors. The “single‑consent” permission model underlying many AI plug‑ins seems especially risky — once that trust is granted, there’s little transparency about what happens behind the scenes.
In my view, organizations using AI–enabled tools should treat them like any other critical piece of infrastructure: enforce code review, restrict who can approve plug‑ins, and maintain strict operational oversight. For people like you working in InfoSec and compliance — especially in small/medium businesses like wineries — this is a timely reminder: AI adoption must be accompanied by updated governance and threat models, not just productivity gains.
Below is a checklist of security‑best practices (for companies and vCISOs) to guard against misuse of AI plug‑ins — could be a useful to assess your current controls.
Meet Your Virtual Chief AI Officer: Enterprise AI Governance Without the Enterprise Price Tag
The question isn’t whether your organization needs AI governance—it’s whether you can afford to wait until you have budget for a full-time Chief AI Officer to get started.
Most mid-sized companies find themselves in an impossible position: they’re deploying AI tools across their operations, facing increasing regulatory scrutiny from frameworks like the EU AI Act and ISO 42001, yet they lack the specialized leadership needed to manage AI risks effectively. A full-time Chief AI Officer commands $250,000-$400,000 annually, putting enterprise-grade AI governance out of reach for organizations that need it most.
The Virtual Chief AI Officer Solution
DeuraInfoSec pioneered a different approach. Our Virtual Chief AI Officer (vCAIO) model delivers the same strategic AI governance leadership that Fortune 500 companies deploy—on a fractional basis that fits your organization’s actual needs and budget.
Think of it like the virtual CISO (vCISO) model that revolutionized cybersecurity for mid-market companies. Instead of choosing between no governance and an unaffordable executive, you get experienced AI governance leadership, proven implementation frameworks, and ongoing strategic guidance—all delivered remotely through a structured engagement model.
How the vCAIO Model Works
Our vCAIO services are built around three core tiers, each designed to meet organizations at different stages of AI maturity:
Tier 1: AI Governance Assessment & Roadmap
What you get: A comprehensive evaluation of your current AI landscape, risk profile, and compliance gaps—delivered in 4-6 weeks.
We start by understanding what AI systems you’re actually running, where they touch sensitive data or critical decisions, and what regulatory requirements apply to your industry. Our assessment covers:
Complete AI system inventory and risk classification
Gap analysis against ISO 42001, EU AI Act, and industry-specific requirements
Vendor AI risk evaluation for third-party tools
Executive-ready governance roadmap with prioritized recommendations
Delivered through: Virtual workshops with key stakeholders, automated assessment tools, document review, and a detailed written report with implementation timeline.
Ideal for: Organizations just beginning their AI governance journey or those needing to understand their compliance position before major AI deployments.
Tier 2: AI Policy Design & Implementation
What you get: Custom AI governance framework designed for your organization’s specific risks, operations, and regulatory environment—implemented over 8-12 weeks.
We don’t hand you generic templates. Our team develops comprehensive, practical governance documentation that your organization can actually use:
AI Management System (AIMS) framework aligned with ISO 42001
AI acceptable use policies and control procedures
Risk assessment and impact analysis processes
Model development, testing, and deployment standards
Incident response and monitoring protocols
Training materials for developers, users, and leadership
Ideal for: Organizations with mature AI deployments needing ongoing governance oversight, or those in regulated industries requiring continuous compliance demonstration.
Why Organizations Choose the vCAIO Model
Immediate Expertise: Our team includes practitioners who are actively implementing ISO 42001 at ShareVault while consulting for clients across financial services, healthcare, and B2B SaaS. You get real-world experience, not theoretical frameworks.
Scalable Investment: Start with an assessment, expand to policy implementation, then scale up to ongoing advisory as your AI maturity grows. No need to commit to full-time headcount before you understand your governance requirements.
Faster Time to Compliance: We’ve already built the frameworks, templates, and processes. What would take an internal hire 12-18 months to develop, we deliver in weeks—because we’re deploying proven methodologies refined across multiple implementations.
Flexibility: Need more support during a major AI deployment or regulatory audit? Scale up engagement. Hit a slower period? Scale back. The vCAIO model adapts to your actual needs rather than fixed headcount.
Delivered Entirely Online
Every aspect of our vCAIO services is designed for remote delivery. We conduct governance assessments through secure virtual workshops and automated tools. Policy development happens through collaborative online sessions with your stakeholders. Ongoing monitoring uses cloud-based dashboards and scheduled video check-ins.
This approach isn’t just convenient—it’s how modern AI governance should work. Your AI systems operate across distributed environments. Your governance should too.
Who Benefits from vCAIO Services
Our vCAIO model serves organizations facing AI governance challenges without the resources for full-time leadership:
Mid-sized B2B SaaS companies deploying AI features while preparing for enterprise customer security reviews
Financial services firms using AI for fraud detection, underwriting, or advisory services under increasing regulatory scrutiny
Healthcare organizations implementing AI diagnostic or operational tools subject to FDA or HIPAA requirements
Private equity portfolio companies needing to demonstrate AI governance for exits or due diligence
Professional services firms adopting generative AI tools while maintaining client confidentiality obligations
Getting Started
The first step is understanding where you stand. We offer a complimentary 30-minute AI governance consultation to review your current position, identify immediate risks, and recommend the appropriate engagement tier for your organization.
From there, most clients begin with our Tier 1 Assessment to establish a baseline and roadmap. Organizations with urgent compliance deadlines or active AI deployments sometimes start directly with Tier 2 policy implementation.
The goal isn’t to sell you the highest tier—it’s to give you exactly the AI governance leadership your organization needs right now, with a clear path to scale as your AI maturity grows.
The Alternative to Doing Nothing
Many organizations tell themselves they’ll address AI governance “once things slow down” or “when we have more budget.” Meanwhile, they continue deploying AI tools, creating risk exposure and compliance gaps that become more expensive to fix with each passing quarter.
The Virtual Chief AI Officer model exists because AI governance can’t wait for perfect conditions. Your competitors are using AI. Your regulators are watching AI. Your customers are asking about AI.
You need governance leadership now. You just don’t need to hire someone full-time to get it.
Ready to discuss how Virtual Chief AI Officer services could work for your organization?
Contact us at hd@deurainfosec.com or visit DeuraInfoSec.com to schedule your complimentary AI governance consultation.
DeuraInfoSec specializes in AI governance consulting and ISO 42001 implementation. As pioneer-practitioners actively implementing these frameworks at ShareVault while consulting for clients across industries, we deliver proven methodologies refined through real-world deployment—not theoretical advice.
How to Assess Your Current Compliance Framework Against ISO 42001
Published by DISCInfoSec | AI Governance & Information Security Consulting
The AI Governance Challenge Nobody Talks About
Your organization has invested years building robust information security controls. You’re ISO 27001 certified, SOC 2 compliant, or aligned with NIST Cybersecurity Framework. Your security posture is solid.
Then your engineering team deploys an AI-powered feature.
Suddenly, you’re facing questions your existing framework never anticipated: How do we detect model drift? What about algorithmic bias? Who reviews AI decisions? How do we explain what the model is doing?
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Traditional compliance frameworks weren’t designed for AI systems. ISO 27001 gives you 93 controls—but only 51 of them apply to AI governance. That leaves 47 critical gaps.
This isn’t a theoretical problem. It’s affecting organizations right now as they race to deploy AI while regulators sharpen their focus on algorithmic accountability, fairness, and transparency.
At DISCInfoSec, we’ve built a free assessment tool that does something most organizations struggle with manually: it maps your existing compliance framework against ISO 42001 (the international standard for AI management systems) and shows you exactly which AI governance controls you’re missing.
Not vague recommendations. Not generic best practices. Specific, actionable control gaps with remediation guidance.
What Makes This Tool Different
1. Framework-Specific Analysis
Select your current framework:
ISO 27001: Identifies 47 missing AI controls across 5 categories
SOC 2: Identifies 26 missing AI controls across 6 categories
NIST CSF: Identifies 23 missing AI controls across 7 categories
Each framework has different strengths and blindspots when it comes to AI governance. The tool accounts for these differences.
2. Risk-Prioritized Results
Not all gaps are created equal. The tool categorizes each missing control by risk level:
Critical Priority: Controls that address fundamental AI safety, fairness, or accountability issues
High Priority: Important controls that should be implemented within 90 days
Medium Priority: Controls that enhance AI governance maturity
This lets you focus resources where they matter most.
3. Comprehensive Gap Categories
The analysis covers the complete AI governance lifecycle:
AI System Lifecycle Management
Planning and requirements specification
Design and development controls
Verification and validation procedures
Deployment and change management
AI-Specific Risk Management
Impact assessments for algorithmic fairness
Risk treatment for AI-specific threats
Continuous risk monitoring as models evolve
Data Governance for AI
Training data quality and bias detection
Data provenance and lineage tracking
Synthetic data management
Labeling quality assurance
AI Transparency & Explainability
System transparency requirements
Explainability mechanisms
Stakeholder communication protocols
Human Oversight & Control
Human-in-the-loop requirements
Override mechanisms
Emergency stop capabilities
AI Monitoring & Performance
Model performance tracking
Drift detection and response
Bias and fairness monitoring
4. Actionable Remediation Guidance
For every missing control, you get:
Specific implementation steps: Not “implement monitoring” but “deploy MLOps platform with drift detection algorithms and configurable alert thresholds”
Realistic timelines: Implementation windows ranging from 15-90 days based on complexity
ISO 42001 control references: Direct mapping to the international standard
5. Downloadable Comprehensive Report
After completing your assessment, download a detailed PDF report (12-15 pages) that includes:
Executive summary with key metrics
Phased implementation roadmap
Detailed gap analysis with remediation steps
Recommended next steps
Resource allocation guidance
How Organizations Are Using This Tool
Scenario 1: Pre-Deployment Risk Assessment
A fintech company planning to deploy an AI-powered credit decisioning system used the tool to identify gaps before going live. The assessment revealed they were missing:
Algorithmic impact assessment procedures
Bias monitoring capabilities
Explainability mechanisms for loan denials
Human review workflows for edge cases
Result: They addressed critical gaps before deployment, avoiding regulatory scrutiny and reputational risk.
Scenario 2: Board-Level AI Governance
A healthcare SaaS provider’s board asked, “Are we compliant with AI regulations?” Their CISO used the gap analysis to provide a data-driven answer:
62% AI governance coverage from their existing SOC 2 program
18 critical gaps requiring immediate attention
$450K estimated remediation budget
6-month implementation timeline
Result: Board approved AI governance investment with clear ROI and risk mitigation story.
Scenario 3: M&A Due Diligence
A private equity firm evaluating an AI-first acquisition used the tool to assess the target company’s governance maturity:
Target claimed “enterprise-grade AI governance”
Gap analysis revealed 31 missing controls
Due diligence team identified $2M+ in post-acquisition remediation costs
Result: PE firm negotiated purchase price adjustment and built remediation into first 100 days.
Scenario 4: Vendor Risk Assessment
An enterprise buyer evaluating AI vendor solutions used the gap analysis to inform their vendor questionnaire:
Identified which AI governance controls were non-negotiable
Created tiered vendor assessment based on AI risk level
Built contract language requiring specific ISO 42001 controls
Result: More rigorous vendor selection process and better contractual protections.
The Strategic Value Beyond Compliance
While the tool helps you identify compliance gaps, the real value runs deeper:
1. Resource Allocation Intelligence
Instead of guessing where to invest in AI governance, you get a prioritized roadmap. This helps you:
Justify budget requests with specific control gaps
Allocate engineering resources to highest-risk areas
The EU AI Act, proposed US AI regulations, and industry-specific requirements all reference concepts like impact assessments, transparency, and human oversight. ISO 42001 anticipates these requirements. By mapping your gaps now, you’re building proactive regulatory readiness.
3. Competitive Differentiation
As AI becomes table stakes, how you govern AI becomes the differentiator. Organizations that can demonstrate:
Systematic bias monitoring
Explainable AI decisions
Human oversight mechanisms
Continuous model validation
…win in regulated industries and enterprise sales.
4. Risk-Informed AI Strategy
The gap analysis forces conversations between technical teams, risk functions, and business leaders. These conversations often reveal:
AI use cases that are higher risk than initially understood
Opportunities to start with lower-risk AI applications
Need for governance infrastructure before scaling AI deployment
What the Assessment Reveals About Different Frameworks
ISO 27001 Organizations (51% AI Coverage)
Strengths: Strong foundation in information security, risk management, and change control.
Critical Gaps:
AI-specific risk assessment methodologies
Training data governance
Model drift monitoring
Explainability requirements
Human oversight mechanisms
Key Insight: ISO 27001 gives you the governance structure but lacks AI-specific technical controls. You need to augment with MLOps capabilities and AI risk assessment procedures.
SOC 2 Organizations (59% AI Coverage)
Strengths: Solid monitoring and logging, change management, vendor management.
Critical Gaps:
AI impact assessments
Bias and fairness monitoring
Model validation processes
Explainability mechanisms
Human-in-the-loop requirements
Key Insight: SOC 2’s focus on availability and processing integrity partially translates to AI systems, but you’re missing the ethical AI and fairness components entirely.
Key Insight: NIST CSF provides the risk management philosophy but lacks prescriptive AI controls. You need to operationalize AI governance with specific procedures and technical capabilities.
The ISO 42001 Advantage
Why use ISO 42001 as the benchmark? Three reasons:
1. International Consensus: ISO 42001 represents global agreement on AI governance requirements, making it a safer bet than region-specific regulations that may change.
2. Comprehensive Coverage: It addresses technical controls (model validation, monitoring), process controls (lifecycle management), and governance controls (oversight, transparency).
3. Audit-Ready Structure: Like ISO 27001, it’s designed for third-party certification, meaning the controls are specific enough to be auditable.
Getting Started: A Practical Approach
Here’s how to use the AI Control Gap Analysis tool strategically:
Determine build vs. buy decisions (e.g., MLOps platforms)
Create phased implementation plan
Step 4: Governance Foundation (Months 1-2)
Establish AI governance committee
Create AI risk assessment procedures
Define AI system lifecycle requirements
Implement impact assessment process
Step 5: Technical Controls (Months 2-4)
Deploy monitoring and drift detection
Implement bias detection in ML pipelines
Create model validation procedures
Build explainability capabilities
Step 6: Operationalization (Months 4-6)
Train teams on new procedures
Integrate AI governance into existing workflows
Conduct internal audits
Measure and report on AI governance metrics
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
1. Treating AI Governance as a Compliance Checkbox
AI governance isn’t about checking boxes—it’s about building systematic capabilities to develop and deploy AI responsibly. The gap analysis is a starting point, not the destination.
2. Underestimating Timeline
Organizations consistently underestimate how long it takes to implement AI governance controls. Training data governance alone can take 60-90 days to implement properly. Plan accordingly.
3. Ignoring Cultural Change
Technical controls without cultural buy-in fail. Your engineering team needs to understand why these controls matter, not just what they need to do.
4. Siloed Implementation
AI governance requires collaboration between data science, engineering, security, legal, and risk functions. Siloed implementations create gaps and inconsistencies.
5. Over-Engineering
Not every AI system needs the same level of governance. Risk-based approach is critical. A recommendation engine needs different controls than a loan approval system.
The Bottom Line
Here’s what we’re seeing across industries: AI adoption is outpacing AI governance by 18-24 months. Organizations deploy AI systems, then scramble to retrofit governance when regulators, customers, or internal stakeholders raise concerns.
The AI Control Gap Analysis tool helps you flip this dynamic. By identifying gaps early, you can:
Deploy AI with appropriate governance from day one
Avoid costly rework and technical debt
Build stakeholder confidence in your AI systems
Position your organization ahead of regulatory requirements
The question isn’t whether you’ll need comprehensive AI governance—it’s whether you’ll build it proactively or reactively.
Take the Assessment
Ready to see where your compliance framework falls short on AI governance?
DISCInfoSec specializes in AI governance and information security consulting for B2B SaaS and financial services organizations. We help companies bridge the gap between traditional compliance frameworks and emerging AI governance requirements.
We’re not just consultants telling you what to do—we’re pioneer-practitioners implementing ISO 42001 at ShareVault while helping other organizations navigate AI governance.
🚨 If you’re ISO 27001 certified and using AI, you have 47 control gaps.
And auditors are starting to notice.
Here’s what’s happening right now:
→ SOC 2 auditors asking “How do you manage AI model risk?” (no documented answer = finding)
→ Enterprise customers adding AI governance sections to vendor questionnaires
→ EU AI Act enforcement starting in 2025 → Cyber insurance excluding AI incidents without documented controls
ISO 27001 covers information security. But if you’re using:
Customer-facing chatbots
Predictive analytics
Automated decision-making
Even GitHub Copilot
You need 47 additional AI-specific controls that ISO 27001 doesn’t address.
I’ve mapped all 47 controls across 7 critical areas: âś“ AI System Lifecycle Management âś“ Data Governance for AI âś“ Model Risk & Testing âś“ Transparency & Explainability âś“ Human Oversight & Accountability âś“ Third-Party AI Management âś“ AI Incident Response
🔥 Truth bomb from a experience: You can’t make companies care about security.
Most don’t—until they get burned.
Security isn’t important… until it suddenly is. And by then, it’s often too late. Just ask the businesses that disappeared after a cyberattack.
Trying to convince someone it matters? Like telling your friend to eat healthy—they won’t care until a personal wake-up call hits.
Here’s the smarter play: focus on the people who already value security. Show them why you’re the one who can solve their problems. That’s where your time actually pays off.
Your energy shouldn’t go into preaching; it should go into actionable impact for those ready to act.
⏳ Remember: people only take security seriously when they decide it’s worth it. Your job is to be ready when that moment comes.
Opinion: This perspective is spot-on. Security adoption isn’t about persuasion; it’s about timing and alignment. The most effective consultants succeed not by preaching to the uninterested, but by identifying those who already recognize risk and helping them act decisively.
ISO 27001 assessment → Gap analysis → Prioritized remediation → See your risks immediately with a clear path from gaps to remediation.
Start your assessment today — simply click the image on above to complete your payment and get instant access – Evaluate your organization’s compliance with mandatory ISMS clauses through our 5-Level Maturity Model — until the end of this month.
Let’s review your assessment results— Contact us for actionable instructions for resolving each gap.
The Help Net Security video titled “The CISO’s guide to stronger board communication” features Alisdair Faulkner, CEO of Darwinium, who discusses how the role of the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) has evolved significantly in recent years. The piece frames the challenge: CISOs now must bridge the gap between deep technical knowledge and strategic business conversations.
Faulkner argues that many CISOs fall into the trap of using overly technical language when speaking with board members. This can lead to misunderstanding, disengagement, or even resistance. He highlights that clarity and relevance are vital: CISOs should aim to translate complex security concepts into business-oriented terms.
One key shift he advocates is positioning cybersecurity not as a cost center, but as a business enabler. In other words, security initiatives should be tied to business value—supporting goals like growth, innovation, resilience, and risk mitigation—rather than being framed purely as expense or compliance.
Faulkner also delves into the effects of artificial intelligence on board-level discussions. He points out that AI is both a tool and a threat: it can enhance security operations, but it also introduces new vulnerabilities and risk vectors. As such, it shifts the nature of what boards must understand about cybersecurity.
To build trust and alignment with executives, the video offers practical strategies. These include focusing on metrics that matter to business leaders, storytelling to make risks tangible, and avoiding the temptation to “drown” stakeholders in technical detail. The goal is to foster informed decision-making, not just to show knowledge.
Faulkner emphasizes resilience and innovation as hallmarks of modern security leadership. Rather than passively reacting to threats, the CISO should help the organization anticipate, adapt, and evolve. This helps ensure that security is integrated into the business’s strategic journey.
Another insight is that board communications should be ongoing and evolving, not limited to annual reviews or audits. As risks, technologies, and business priorities shift, the CISO needs to keep the board apprised, engaged, and confident in the security posture.
In sum, Faulkner’s guidance reframes the CISO’s role—from a highly technical operator to a strategic bridge to the board. He urges CISOs to communicate in business terms, emphasize value and resilience, and adapt to emerging challenges like AI. The video is a call for security leaders to become fluent in “the language of the board.”
My opinion I think this is a very timely and valuable perspective. In many organizations, there’s still a disconnect between cybersecurity teams and executive governance. Framing security in business value rather than technical jargon is essential to elevate the conversation and gain real support. The emphasis on AI is also apt—boards increasingly need to understand both the opportunities and risks it brings. Overall, Faulkner’s approach is pragmatic and strategic, and I believe CISOs who adopt these practices will be more effective and influential.
Here’s a concise cheat sheet based on the article and video:
📝 CISO–Board Communication Cheat Sheet
1. Speak the Board’s Language
Avoid deep technical jargon.
Translate risks into business impact (financial, reputational, operational).
2. Frame Security as a Business Enabler
Position cybersecurity as value-adding, not just a cost or compliance checkbox.
Show how security supports growth, innovation, and resilience.
3. Use Metrics That Matter
Present KPIs that executives care about (risk reduction, downtime avoided, compliance readiness).
Keep dashboards simple and aligned to strategic goals.
4. Leverage Storytelling
Use real scenarios, case studies, or analogies to make risks tangible.
