Jan 29 2026

🔐 What the OWASP Top 10 Is and Why It Matters

Category: Information Security,owasp — disc7 @ 1:18 pm

🔐 What the OWASP Top 10 Is and Why It Matters

The OWASP Top 10 remains one of the most widely respected, community-driven lists of critical application security risks. Its purpose is to spotlight where most serious vulnerabilities occur so development teams can prioritize mitigation. The 2025 edition reinforces that many vulnerabilities aren’t just coding mistakes — they stem from design flaws, architectural decisions, dependency weaknesses, and misconfigurations.

🎯 Insecure Design and Misconfiguration Stay Central

Insecure design and weak configurations continue to top the risk landscape, especially as apps become more complex and distributed. Even with AI tools helping write code or templates, if foundational security thinking is missing early, these tools can unintentionally embed insecure patterns at scale.

📦 Third-Party Dependencies Expand Attack Surface

Modern software isn’t just code you write — it’s an ecosystem of open-source libraries, services, infrastructure components, and AI models. The Top 10 now reflects how vulnerable elements in this wider ecosystem frequently introduce weaknesses long before deployment. Without visibility into every component your software relies on, you’re effectively blind to many major risks.

🤖 AI Accelerates Both Innovation and Risk

AI tools — including code generators and helpers — accelerate development but don’t automatically improve security. They can reproduce insecure patterns, suggest outdated APIs, or introduce unvetted components. As a result, traditional OWASP concerns like authentication failures and injection risks can be amplified in AI-augmented workflows.

🧠 Supply Chains Now Include AI Artifacts

The definition of a “component” in application security now includes datasets, pretrained models, plugins, and other AI artifacts. These parts often lack mature governance, standardized versioning, and reliable vulnerability disclosures. This broadening of scope means that software supply chains — especially when AI is involved — demand deeper inspection and continuous monitoring.

🔎 Trust Boundaries and Data Exposure Expand

AI-enabled systems often interact dynamically with internal and external data sources. If trust boundaries aren’t clearly defined or enforced — e.g., through access controls, validation rules, or output filtering — sensitive data can leak or be manipulated. Many traditional vulnerabilities resurface in this context, just with AI-flavored twists.

🛠 Automation Must Be Paired With Guardrails

Automation — whether CI/CD pipelines or AI-assisted code completion — speeds delivery. But without policy-driven controls that enforce security tests and approvals at the same velocity, vulnerabilities can propagate fast and wide. Proactive, automated governance is essential to prevent insecure components from reaching production.

📊 Sonatype’s Focus: Visibility and Policy

Sonatype’s argument in the article is that the foundational practices used to secure traditional application security risks (inventorying dependencies, enforcing policy, continuous visibility) also apply to AI-driven risks. Better visibility into components — including models and datasets — plus enforceable policies helps organizations balance speed and security. (Sonatype)

🧠 My Perspective

The Sonatype article doesn’t reinvent OWASP’s Top 10, but instead bridges the gap between traditional application security and emerging AI-enabled risk vectors. What’s clear from the latest OWASP work and related research is that:

AI doesn’t create wholly new vulnerabilities; it magnifies existing ones (insecure design, misconfiguration, supply chain gaps) while adding its own nuances like model artefacts, prompt risks, and dynamic data flows.
Effective security in the AI era still boils down to proactive controls — visibility, validation, governance, and human oversight — but applied across a broader ecosystem that now includes models, datasets, and AI-augmented pipelines.
Organizations tend to treat AI as a productivity tool, not a risk domain; aligning AI risk management with established frameworks like OWASP helps anchor security in well-tested principles even as threats evolve.

In short: OWASP’s Top 10 remains highly relevant, but teams must think beyond code alone — to components, AI behaviors, and trust boundaries — to secure modern applications effectively.

OWASP Top 10 Web Application Security Risks ↔ MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

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.

Tags: OWASP Top 10

Comments (0)

Jan 28 2026

AI Is the New Shadow IT: Why Cybersecurity Must Own AI Risk and Governance

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails — disc7 @ 2:01 pm

AI is increasingly being compared to shadow IT, not because it is inherently reckless, but because it is being adopted faster than governance structures can keep up. This framing resonated strongly in recent discussions, including last week’s webinar, where there was broad agreement that AI is simply the latest wave of technology entering organizations through both sanctioned and unsanctioned paths.

What is surprising, however, is that some cybersecurity leaders believe AI should fall outside their responsibility. This mindset creates a dangerous gap. Historically, when new technologies emerged—cloud computing, SaaS platforms, mobile devices—security teams were eventually expected to step in, assess risk, and establish controls. AI is following the same trajectory.

From a practical standpoint, AI is still software. It runs on infrastructure, consumes data, integrates with applications, and influences business processes. If cybersecurity teams already have responsibility for securing software systems, data flows, and third-party tools, then AI naturally falls within that same scope. Treating it as an exception only delays accountability.

That said, AI is not just another application. While it shares many of the same risks as traditional software, it also introduces new dimensions that security and risk teams must recognize. Models can behave unpredictably, learn from biased data, or produce outcomes that are difficult to explain or audit.

One of the most significant shifts AI introduces is the prominence of ethics and automated decision-making. Unlike conventional software that follows explicit rules, AI systems can influence hiring decisions, credit approvals, medical recommendations, and security actions at scale. These outcomes can have real-world consequences that go beyond confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Because of this, cybersecurity leadership must expand its lens. Traditional controls like access management, logging, and vulnerability management remain critical, but they must be complemented with governance around model use, data provenance, human oversight, and accountability for AI-driven decisions.

Ultimately, the debate is not about whether AI belongs to cybersecurity—it clearly does—but about how the function evolves to manage it responsibly. Ignoring AI or pushing it to another team risks repeating the same mistakes made with shadow IT in the past.

My perspective: AI really is shadow IT in its early phase—new, fast-moving, and business-driven—but that is precisely why cybersecurity and risk leaders must step in early. The organizations that succeed will be the ones that treat AI as software plus governance: securing it technically while also addressing ethics, transparency, and decision accountability. That combination turns AI from an unmanaged risk into a governed capability.

In a recent interview and accompanying essay, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warns that humanity is not prepared for the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence and the profound disruptions it could bring. He argues that existing social, political, and economic systems may lag behind the pace of AI advancements, creating a dangerous mismatch between capability and governance.

Tags: Shadow AI, Shadow IT

Comments (0)

Jan 28 2026

OWASP Top 10 Web Application Security Risks ↔ MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Category: Attack Matrix,owasp — disc7 @ 9:42 am

Below is a clear, practitioner-oriented breakdown of the OWASP Top 10 Web Application Security Risks (latest major revision: OWASP Top 10 – 2021, which is still the current standard as of 2025).

I’ll cover what each risk is, why it matters, common attack examples, and practical mitigations—useful for both defensive (Blue Team) and offensive (Red Team / pentesting) perspectives.

1. A01: Broken Access Control

What it is:
Failures that allow users to act outside their intended permissions.

Why it matters:
Access control flaws are the most common and most damaging web app vulnerabilities.

Common examples:

IDOR (Insecure Direct Object Reference): /api/users/1234
Horizontal privilege escalation
Vertical privilege escalation (user → admin)
Missing authorization checks on API endpoints

Attack scenario:

GET /api/invoices/9876

Attacker changes 9876 to another user’s invoice ID.

Mitigations:

Enforce server-side authorization on every request
Use deny-by-default policies
Implement role-based access control (RBAC)
Log and alert on access control failures

2. A02: Cryptographic Failures

(formerly Sensitive Data Exposure)

What it is:
Improper protection of sensitive data in transit or at rest.

Why it matters:
Leads directly to data breaches, credential theft, and compliance violations.

Common examples:

Plaintext passwords
Weak hashing (MD5, SHA1)
No HTTPS or weak TLS
Hardcoded secrets

Attack scenario:

Attacker intercepts traffic over HTTP
Dumps password hashes and cracks them offline

Mitigations:

Use TLS 1.2+ everywhere
Hash passwords with bcrypt / Argon2
Encrypt sensitive data at rest
Proper key management (HSM, KMS)

3. A03: Injection

What it is:
Untrusted data is interpreted as code by an interpreter.

Why it matters:
Injection often leads to full database compromise or RCE.

Common types:

SQL Injection
NoSQL Injection
Command Injection
LDAP Injection

Attack scenario (SQLi):

' OR 1=1--

Mitigations:

Use parameterized queries
Avoid dynamic query construction
Input validation (allow-lists)
ORM frameworks (used correctly)

4. A04: Insecure Design

What it is:
Architectural or design flaws that cannot be fixed with simple code changes.

Why it matters:
Secure coding cannot fix insecure architecture.

Common examples:

No rate limiting
No threat modeling
Trusting client-side validation
Missing business logic controls

Attack scenario:

Unlimited password attempts → credential stuffing

Mitigations:

Perform threat modeling
Use secure design patterns
Abuse-case testing
Define security requirements early

5. A05: Security Misconfiguration

What it is:
Improperly configured frameworks, servers, or platforms.

Why it matters:
Misconfigurations are easy to exploit and extremely common.

Common examples:

Default credentials
Stack traces exposed
Open admin panels
Directory listing enabled

Attack scenario:

Attacker finds /admin or /phpinfo.php

Mitigations:

Harden systems (CIS benchmarks)
Disable unused features
Automated configuration audits
Secure deployment pipelines

6. A06: Vulnerable and Outdated Components

What it is:
Using libraries or components with known vulnerabilities.

Why it matters:
Many breaches occur via third-party dependencies.

Common examples:

Log4Shell (Log4j)
Old jQuery with XSS
Outdated CMS plugins

Attack scenario:

Exploit known CVE with public PoC

Mitigations:

Maintain an SBOM
Regular dependency updates
Use tools like:
- OWASP Dependency-Check
- Snyk
- Dependabot

7. A07: Identification and Authentication Failures

What it is:
Weak authentication or session management.

Why it matters:
Allows account takeover and impersonation.

Common examples:

Weak passwords
No MFA
Session fixation
JWT misconfiguration

Attack scenario:

Brute-force login without rate limiting

Mitigations:

Enforce strong password policies
Implement MFA
Secure session cookies (HttpOnly, Secure)
Proper JWT validation

8. A08: Software and Data Integrity Failures

What it is:
Failure to protect integrity of code and data.

Why it matters:
Leads to supply chain attacks.

Common examples:

Unsigned updates
Insecure CI/CD pipelines
Deserialization flaws

Attack scenario:

Malicious dependency injected during build

Mitigations:

Code signing
Secure CI/CD pipelines
Validate serialized data
Use trusted repositories only

9. A09: Security Logging and Monitoring Failures

What it is:
Insufficient logging and alerting.

Why it matters:
Attacks go undetected or are discovered too late.

Common examples:

No login failure logs
No alerting on privilege escalation
Logs not protected

Attack scenario:

Attacker maintains persistence for months unnoticed

Mitigations:

Centralized logging (SIEM)
Log authentication and authorization events
Real-time alerting
Incident response plans

10. A10: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

What it is:
Server makes unauthorized requests on behalf of attacker.

Why it matters:
Can lead to cloud metadata compromise and internal network access.

Common examples:

Fetching URLs without validation
Accessing 169.254.169.254 (cloud metadata)

Attack scenario:

POST /fetch?url=http://localhost/admin

Mitigations:

URL allow-listing
Block internal IP ranges
Disable unnecessary outbound requests
Network segmentation

OWASP Top 10 Summary Table

Rank	Category
A01	Broken Access Control
A02	Cryptographic Failures
A03	Injection
A04	Insecure Design
A05	Security Misconfiguration
A06	Vulnerable & Outdated Components
A07	Identification & Authentication Failures
A08	Software & Data Integrity Failures
A09	Logging & Monitoring Failures
A10	SSRF

How This Is Used in Practice

Developers: Secure coding & design baseline
Pentesters: Test case foundation
Blue Teams: Control prioritization
Compliance: Mapping to ISO 27001, PCI-DSS, SOC 2

Below is a practical alignment of OWASP Top 10 (2021) with MITRE ATT&CK (Enterprise).
This mapping is widely used in threat modeling, purple-team exercises, and SOC detection engineering to bridge application-layer risk with adversary behavior.

⚠️ Important:
OWASP describes what is vulnerable; MITRE ATT&CK describes how adversaries operate.
The mapping is therefore many-to-many, not 1:1.

OWASP Top 10 ↔ MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

A01 – Broken Access Control

Core Risk: Unauthorized actions and privilege escalation

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques

T1068 – Exploitation for Privilege Escalation
T1078 – Valid Accounts
T1098 – Account Manipulation
T1548 – Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism

Real-World Flow

Attacker exploits IDOR
Accesses admin-only endpoints
Performs privilege escalation

Detection Focus

Unusual object access patterns
Privilege changes without admin action
Cross-account data access

A02 – Cryptographic Failures

Core Risk: Exposure of credentials or sensitive data

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques

T1555 – Credentials from Password Stores
T1003 – OS Credential Dumping
T1040 – Network Sniffing
T1110 – Brute Force

Real-World Flow

Intercept plaintext credentials
Crack weak hashes
Reuse credentials for lateral access

Detection Focus

TLS downgrade attempts
Excessive authentication failures
Credential reuse anomalies

A03 – Injection

Core Risk: Interpreter abuse leading to DB or OS compromise

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques

T1190 – Exploit Public-Facing Application
T1059 – Command and Scripting Interpreter
T1505 – Server Software Component Abuse

Real-World Flow

SQLi in login form
Dump credentials
RCE via stacked queries

Detection Focus

SQL syntax errors in logs
Unexpected shell execution
WAF rule triggers

A04 – Insecure Design

Core Risk: Business logic and architectural weaknesses

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques

T1499 – Endpoint Denial of Service
T1110 – Brute Force
T1213 – Data from Information Repositories

Real-World Flow

Abuse missing rate limits
Enumerate accounts
Mass data harvesting

Detection Focus

High-frequency request patterns
Logic abuse (valid requests, malicious intent)
API misuse metrics

A05 – Security Misconfiguration

Core Risk: Default or insecure settings

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques

T1580 – Cloud Infrastructure Discovery
T1082 – System Information Discovery
T1190 – Exploit Public-Facing Application

Real-World Flow

Discover open admin interfaces
Access debug endpoints
Extract secrets/configs

Detection Focus

Access to admin/debug endpoints
Configuration file exposure attempts
Unexpected service enumeration

A06 – Vulnerable & Outdated Components

Core Risk: Known CVEs exploited

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques

T1190 – Exploit Public-Facing Application
T1210 – Exploitation of Remote Services
T1505.003 – Web Shell

Real-World Flow

Exploit known CVE (e.g., Log4Shell)
Deploy web shell
Persistence achieved

Detection Focus

Known exploit signatures
Abnormal child processes
Web shell indicators

A07 – Identification & Authentication Failures

Core Risk: Account takeover

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques

T1110 – Brute Force
T1078 – Valid Accounts
T1539 – Steal Web Session Cookie

Real-World Flow

Credential stuffing
Session hijacking
Account takeover

Detection Focus

Geo-impossible logins
MFA bypass attempts
Session reuse patterns

A08 – Software & Data Integrity Failures

Core Risk: Supply chain compromise

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques

T1195 – Supply Chain Compromise
T1059 – Command Execution
T1608 – Stage Capabilities

Real-World Flow

Malicious dependency injected
Code executes during build
Backdoor deployed

Detection Focus

Unsigned builds
Unexpected CI pipeline changes
Integrity check failures

A09 – Logging & Monitoring Failures

Core Risk: Undetected compromise

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques

T1562 – Impair Defenses
T1070 – Indicator Removal on Host
T1027 – Obfuscated/Encrypted Payloads

Real-World Flow

Disable logging
Clear logs
Persist undetected

Detection Focus

Gaps in telemetry
Sudden log volume drops
Disabled security agents

A10 – Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Core Risk: Internal service abuse

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques

T1190 – Exploit Public-Facing Application
T1046 – Network Service Discovery
T1552 – Unsecured Credentials

Real-World Flow

SSRF to cloud metadata service
Extract IAM credentials
Pivot into cloud environment

Detection Focus

Requests to metadata IPs
Internal-only endpoint access
Abnormal outbound traffic

Visual Summary (Condensed)

OWASP Category	MITRE ATT&CK Tactics
Access Control	Privilege Escalation, Credential Access
Crypto Failures	Credential Access, Collection
Injection	Initial Access, Execution
Insecure Design	Collection, Impact
Misconfiguration	Discovery, Initial Access
Vulnerable Components	Initial Access, Persistence
Auth Failures	Credential Access
Integrity Failures	Supply Chain, Execution
Logging Failures	Defense Evasion
SSRF	Discovery, Lateral Movement

How to Use This Mapping Practically

🔵 Blue Team

Map OWASP risks → detection rules
Prioritize logging for ATT&CK techniques
Improve SIEM correlation

🔴 Red Team

Convert OWASP findings into ATT&CK chains
Report findings in ATT&CK language
Increase exec-level clarity

🟣 Purple Team

Design attack simulations
Validate SOC coverage
Measure MTTD/MTTR

Tags: OWASP Top 10 Web Application Security Risks

Comments (0)

Jan 27 2026

AI Model Risk Management: A Five-Stage Framework for Trust, Compliance, and Control

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 3:15 pm

Stage 1: Risk Identification – What could go wrong?

Risk Identification focuses on proactively uncovering potential issues before an AI model causes harm. The primary challenge at this stage is identifying all relevant risks and vulnerabilities, including data quality issues, security weaknesses, ethical concerns, and unintended biases embedded in training data or model logic. Organizations must also understand how the model could fail or be misused across different contexts. Key tasks include systematically identifying risks, mapping vulnerabilities across the AI lifecycle, and recognizing bias and fairness concerns early so they can be addressed before deployment.

Stage 2: Risk Assessment – How severe is the risk?

Risk Assessment evaluates the significance of identified risks by analyzing their likelihood and potential impact on the organization, users, and regulatory obligations. A key challenge here is accurately measuring risk severity while also assessing whether the model performs as intended under real-world conditions. Organizations must balance technical performance metrics with business, legal, and ethical implications. Key tasks include scoring and prioritizing risks, evaluating model performance, and determining which risks require immediate mitigation versus ongoing monitoring.

Stage 3: Risk Mitigation – How do we reduce the risk?

Risk Mitigation aims to reduce exposure by implementing controls and corrective actions that address prioritized risks. The main challenge is designing safeguards that effectively reduce risk without degrading model performance or business value. This stage often requires technical and organizational coordination. Key tasks include implementing safeguards, mitigating bias, adjusting or retraining models, enhancing explainability, and testing controls to confirm that mitigation measures supports responsible and reliable AI operation.

Stage 4: Risk Monitoring – Are new risks emerging?

Risk Monitoring ensures that AI models remain safe, reliable, and compliant after deployment. A key challenge is continuously monitoring model performance in dynamic environments where data, usage patterns, and threats evolve over time. Organizations must detect model drift, emerging risks, and anomalies before they escalate. Key tasks include ongoing oversight, continuous performance monitoring, detecting and reporting anomalies, and updating risk controls to reflect new insights or changing conditions.

Stage 5: Risk Governance – Is risk management effective?

Risk Governance provides the oversight and accountability needed to ensure AI risk management remains effective and compliant. The main challenges at this stage are establishing clear accountability and ensuring alignment with regulatory requirements, internal policies, and ethical standards. Governance connects technical controls with organizational decision-making. Key tasks include enforcing policies and standards, reviewing and auditing AI risk management practices, maintaining documentation, and ensuring accountability across stakeholders.

Closing Perspective

A well-structured AI Model Risk Management framework transforms AI risk from an abstract concern into a managed, auditable, and defensible process. By systematically identifying, assessing, mitigating, monitoring, and governing AI risks, organizations can reduce regulatory, financial, and reputational exposure—while enabling trustworthy, scalable, and responsible AI adoption.

Tags: AI Model Risk Management

Comments (0)

Jan 27 2026

Why ISO 42001 Matters: Governing Risk, Trust, and Accountability in AI Systems

Category: AI Governance,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 10:46 am

What is ISO/IEC 42001 in today’s AI-infested apps?

ISO/IEC 42001 is the first international standard for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an Artificial Intelligence Management System (AIMS). In an era where AI is deeply embedded into everyday applications—recommendation engines, copilots, fraud detection, decision automation, and generative systems—ISO 42001 provides a governance backbone. It helps organizations ensure that AI systems are trustworthy, transparent, accountable, risk-aware, and aligned with business and societal expectations, rather than being ad-hoc experiments running in production.

At its core, ISO 42001 adapts the familiar Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) lifecycle to AI, recognizing that AI risk is dynamic, context-dependent, and continuously evolving.

PLAN – Establish the AIMS

The Plan phase focuses on setting the foundation for responsible AI. Organizations define the context, identify stakeholders and their expectations, determine the scope of AI usage, and establish leadership commitment. This phase includes defining AI policies, assigning roles and responsibilities, performing AI risk and impact assessments, and setting measurable AI objectives. Planning is critical because AI risks—bias, hallucinations, misuse, privacy violations, and regulatory exposure—cannot be mitigated after deployment if they were never understood upfront.

Why it matters: Without structured planning, AI governance becomes reactive. Plan turns AI risk from an abstract concern into deliberate, documented decisions aligned with business goals and compliance needs.

DO – Implement the AIMS

The Do phase is where AI governance moves from paper to practice. Organizations implement controls through operational planning, resource allocation, competence and training, awareness programs, documentation, and communication. AI systems are built, deployed, and operated with defined safeguards, including risk treatment measures and impact mitigation controls embedded directly into AI lifecycles.

Why it matters: This phase ensures AI governance is not theoretical. It operationalizes ethics, risk management, and accountability into day-to-day AI development and operations.

CHECK – Maintain and Evaluate the AIMS

The Check phase emphasizes continuous oversight. Organizations monitor and measure AI performance, reassess risks, conduct internal audits, and perform management reviews. This is especially important in AI, where models drift, data changes, and new risks emerge long after deployment.

Why it matters: AI systems degrade silently. Check ensures organizations detect bias, failures, misuse, or compliance gaps early—before they become regulatory, legal, or reputational crises.

ACT – Improve the AIMS

The Act phase focuses on continuous improvement. Based on evaluation results, organizations address nonconformities, apply corrective actions, and refine controls. Lessons learned feed back into planning, ensuring AI governance evolves alongside technology, regulation, and organizational maturity.

Why it matters: AI governance is not a one-time effort. Act ensures resilience and adaptability in a fast-changing AI landscape.

Opinion: How ISO 42001 strengthens AI Governance

In my view, ISO 42001 transforms AI governance from intent into execution. Many organizations talk about “responsible AI,” but without a management system, accountability is fragmented and risk ownership is unclear. ISO 42001 provides a repeatable, auditable, and scalable framework that integrates AI risk into enterprise governance—similar to how ISO 27001 did for information security.

More importantly, ISO 42001 helps organizations shift from using AI to governing AI. It creates clarity around who is responsible, how risks are assessed and treated, and how trust is maintained over time. For organizations deploying AI at scale, ISO 42001 is not just a compliance exercise—it is a strategic enabler for safe innovation, regulatory readiness, and long-term trust.

Tags: AI Apps, AI Governance, PDCA

Comments (0)

Jan 26 2026

From Concept to Control: Why AI Boundaries, Accountability, and Responsibility Matter

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails — disc7 @ 12:49 pm

1. Defining AI boundaries clarifies purpose and limits
Clear AI boundaries answer the most basic question: what is this AI meant to do—and what is it not meant to do? By explicitly defining purpose, scope, and constraints, organizations prevent unintended use, scope creep, and over-reliance on the system. Boundaries ensure the AI is applied only within approved business and user contexts, reducing the risk of misuse or decision-making outside its design assumptions.

2. Boundaries anchor AI to real-world business context
AI does not operate in a vacuum. Understanding where an AI system is used—by which business function, user group, or operational environment—connects technical capability to real-world impact. Contextual boundaries help identify downstream effects, regulatory exposure, and operational dependencies that may not be obvious during development but become critical after deployment.

3. Accountability establishes clear ownership
Accountability answers the question: who owns this AI system? Without a clearly accountable owner, AI risks fall into organizational gaps. Assigning an accountable individual or function ensures there is someone responsible for approvals, risk acceptance, and corrective action when issues arise. This mirrors mature governance practices seen in security, privacy, and compliance programs.

4. Ownership enables informed risk decisions
When accountability is explicit, risk discussions become practical rather than theoretical. The accountable owner is best positioned to balance safety, bias, privacy, security, and business risks against business value. This enables informed decisions about whether risks are acceptable, need mitigation, or require stopping deployment altogether.

5. Responsibilities translate risk into safeguards
Defined responsibilities ensure that identified risks lead to concrete action. This includes implementing safeguards and controls, establishing monitoring and evidence collection, and defining escalation paths for incidents. Responsibilities ensure that risk management does not end at design time but continues throughout the AI lifecycle.

6. Post–go-live responsibilities protect long-term trust
AI risks evolve after deployment due to model drift, data changes, or new usage patterns. Clearly defined responsibilities ensure continuous monitoring, incident response, and timely escalation. This “after go-live” ownership is critical to maintaining trust with users, regulators, and stakeholders as real-world behavior diverges from initial assumptions.

7. Governance enables confident AI readiness decisions
When boundaries, accountability, and responsibilities are well defined, organizations can make credible AI readiness decisions—ready, conditionally ready, or not ready. These decisions are based on evidence, controls, and ownership rather than optimism or pressure to deploy.

Opinion (with AI Governance and ISO/IEC 42001):

In my view, boundaries, accountability, and responsibilities are the difference between using AI and governing AI. This is precisely where a formal AI Governance function becomes critical. Governance ensures these elements are not ad hoc or project-specific, but consistently defined, enforced, and reviewed across the organization. Without governance, AI risk remains abstract and unmanaged; with it, risk becomes measurable, owned, and actionable.

Acquiring ISO/IEC 42001 certification strengthens this governance model by institutionalizing accountability, decision rights, and lifecycle controls for AI systems. ISO 42001 requires organizations to clearly define AI purpose and boundaries, assign accountable owners, manage risks such as bias, security, and privacy, and demonstrate ongoing monitoring and incident handling. In effect, it operationalizes responsible AI rather than leaving it as a policy statement.

Together, strong AI governance and ISO 42001 shift AI risk management from technical optimism to disciplined decision-making. Leaders gain the confidence to approve, constrain, or halt AI systems based on evidence, controls, and real-world impact—rather than hype, urgency, or unchecked innovation.

Tags: AI Accountability, AI Boundaries, AI Responsibility

Comments (0)

Jan 26 2026

Why Defining Risk Appetite, Risk Tolerance, and Risk Capacity Is Essential to Effective Risk Management

Category: Risk Assessment,Security Risk Assessment — disc7 @ 11:57 am

Defining risk appetite, risk tolerance, and risk capacity is foundational to effective risk management because they set the boundaries for decision-making, ensure consistency, and prevent both reckless risk-taking and over-conservatism. Each plays a distinct role:

1. Risk Appetite – Strategic Intent

What it is:
The amount and type of risk an organization is willing to pursue to achieve its objectives.

Why it’s necessary:

Aligns risk-taking with business strategy
Guides leadership on where to invest, innovate, or avoid
Prevents ad-hoc or emotion-driven decisions
Provides a top-down signal to management and staff

Example:

“We are willing to accept moderate cybersecurity risk to accelerate digital innovation, but zero tolerance for regulatory non-compliance.”

Without a defined appetite, risk decisions become inconsistent and reactive.

2. Risk Tolerance – Operational Guardrails

What it is:
The acceptable variation around the risk appetite—usually expressed as measurable limits.

Why it’s necessary:

Translates strategy into actionable thresholds
Enables monitoring and escalation
Supports objective decision-making
Prevents “death by risk avoidance” or uncontrolled exposure

Example:

Maximum acceptable downtime: 4 hours
Acceptable phishing click rate: <3%
Financial loss per incident: <$250K

Risk appetite without tolerance is too abstract to manage day-to-day risk.

3. Risk Capacity – Hard Limits

What it is:
The maximum risk the organization can absorb without threatening survival (financial, legal, operational, reputational).

Why it’s necessary:

Establishes non-negotiable boundaries
Prevents existential or catastrophic risk
Informs stress testing and scenario analysis
Ensures risk appetite is realistic, not aspirational

Example:

Cash reserves can absorb only one major ransomware event
Loss of a specific license would shut down operations

Risk capacity is about what you can survive, not what you prefer.

How They Work Together

Concept	Question It Answers	Focus
Risk Appetite	What risk do we want to take?	Strategy
Risk Tolerance	How much deviation is acceptable?	Operations
Risk Capacity	How much risk can we survive?	Survival

Golden Rule:

Risk appetite must always stay within risk capacity, and risk tolerance enforces appetite in practice.

Why This Matters (Especially for Governance & Compliance)

Required by ISO 27001, ISO 31000, COSO ERM, NIST, ISO 42001
Enables defensible decisions for auditors and regulators
Strengthens board oversight and executive accountability
Critical for cyber risk, AI risk, third-party risk, and resilience planning

In One Line

Defining risk appetite, tolerance, and capacity ensures an organization takes the right risks, in the right amount, without risking its existence.

Risk appetite, risk tolerance, and risk capacity describe different but closely related dimensions of how an organization deals with risk. Risk appetite defines the level of risk an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. It reflects intent and ambition: too little risk appetite can result in missed opportunities, while staying within appetite is generally acceptable. Exceeding appetite signals that mitigation is required because the organization is operating beyond what it has consciously agreed to accept.

Risk tolerance translates appetite into measurable thresholds that trigger action. It sets the boundaries for monitoring and review. When outcomes fall below tolerance, they are usually still acceptable, but when outcomes sit within tolerance limits, mitigation may already be required. Once tolerance is exceeded, the situation demands immediate escalation, as predefined limits have been breached and governance intervention is needed.

Risk capacity represents the absolute limit of risk an organization can absorb without threatening its viability. It is non-negotiable. Operating below capacity still requires mitigation, operating within capacity often demands immediate escalation, and exceeding capacity is simply not acceptable. At that point, the organization’s survival, legal standing, or core mission may be at risk.

Together, these three concepts form a hierarchy: appetite expresses willingness, tolerance defines control points, and capacity marks the hard stop.

Opinion on the statement

The statement “When appetite, tolerance, and capacity are clearly defined (and consistently understood), risk stops being theoretical and becomes a practical decision guide” is accurate and highly practical, especially in governance and security contexts.

Without clear definitions, risk discussions stay abstract—people debate “high” or “low” risk without shared meaning. When these concepts are defined, risk becomes operational. Decisions can be made quickly and consistently because everyone knows what is acceptable, what requires action, and what is unacceptable.

Example (Information Security / vCISO context):
An organization may have a risk appetite that accepts moderate operational risk to enable faster digital transformation. Its risk tolerance might specify that any vulnerability with a CVSS score above 7.5 must be remediated within 14 days. Its risk capacity could be defined as “no risk that could result in regulatory fines exceeding $2M or prolonged service outage.”
With this clarity, a newly discovered critical vulnerability is no longer a debate—it either sits within tolerance (monitor), exceeds tolerance (mitigate and escalate), or threatens capacity (stop deployment immediately).

Example (AI governance):
A company may accept some experimentation risk (appetite) with internal AI tools, tolerate limited model inaccuracies under defined error rates (tolerance), but have zero capacity for risks that could cause regulatory non-compliance or IP leakage. This makes go/no-go decisions on AI use cases clear and defensible.

In practice, clearly defining appetite, tolerance, and capacity turns risk management from a compliance exercise into a decision-making framework. It aligns leadership intent with operational action—and that is where risk management delivers real value.

Tags: risk appetite, risk capacity, Risk management, risk tolerance

Comments (0)

Jan 26 2026

Cybersecurity Frameworks Explained: Choosing the Right Standard for Risk, Compliance, and Business Value

Category: cyber security,Cyber Strategy,Information Security,Security Compliance,Security Risk Assessment — disc7 @ 9:55 am

NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF)

The NIST Cybersecurity Framework provides a flexible, risk-based approach to managing cybersecurity using five core functions: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. It is widely adopted by both government and private organizations to understand current security posture, prioritize risks, and improve resilience over time. NIST CSF is particularly strong as a communication tool between technical teams and business leadership because it focuses on outcomes rather than prescriptive controls.

ISO/IEC 27001

ISO/IEC 27001 is an international standard for establishing, implementing, and maintaining an Information Security Management System (ISMS). It emphasizes governance, risk assessment, policies, audits, and continuous improvement. Unlike NIST, ISO 27001 is certifiable, making it valuable for organizations that need formal assurance, regulatory credibility, or customer trust across global markets.

CIS Critical Security Controls

The CIS Controls are a prioritized set of practical, technical security best practices designed to reduce the most common cyber risks. They focus on actionable safeguards such as system hardening, access control, monitoring, and incident detection. CIS is highly effective for organizations that want fast, measurable security improvements without the overhead of full governance frameworks.

PCI DSS

PCI DSS is a mandatory compliance standard for organizations that store, process, or transmit payment card data. It focuses on securing cardholder data through access control, monitoring, encryption, and vulnerability management. PCI DSS is narrowly scoped but very detailed, making it essential for payment security but insufficient as a standalone enterprise security framework.

COBIT

COBIT is an IT governance and management framework that aligns IT processes with business objectives, risk management, and compliance requirements. It is less about technical security controls and more about decision-making, accountability, performance measurement, and process maturity. COBIT is commonly used by large enterprises, auditors, and boards to ensure IT delivers business value while managing risk.

GDPR

GDPR is a data protection regulation focused on privacy rights, lawful data processing, and accountability for personal data handling within the EU (and beyond). It requires organizations to implement strong data protection controls, transparency mechanisms, and breach response processes. GDPR is regulatory in nature, with significant penalties for non-compliance, and places individuals’ rights at the center of security and governance efforts.

Opinion: When and How to Apply These Frameworks

In practice, no single framework is sufficient on its own. The most effective security programs intentionally combine frameworks based on business context, risk exposure, and regulatory pressure.

Use NIST CSF when you need a strategic, flexible starting point to assess risk, communicate with leadership, or build a roadmap without jumping straight into certification.
Adopt ISO/IEC 27001 when you need formal governance, customer assurance, or regulatory credibility, especially for SaaS, global operations, or enterprise clients.
Implement CIS Controls when your priority is rapid risk reduction, technical hardening, and improving day-to-day security operations.
Apply PCI DSS only when payment data is involved—treat it as a mandatory baseline, not a full security program.
Use COBIT when security must be tightly integrated with enterprise governance, audit expectations, and board oversight.
Comply with GDPR whenever personal data of EU residents is processed, and use it to strengthen privacy-by-design practices globally.

How Do You Know Which Framework Is Relevant?

You know a framework is relevant when it clearly answers one or more of these questions for your organization:

What regulatory or contractual obligations do we have?
What risks matter most to our business model?
Who needs assurance—customers, regulators, auditors, or the board?
Do we need outcomes, controls, certification, or governance?

The right framework is the one that reduces real risk, supports business goals, and can actually be operationalized by your organization—not the one that simply looks good on paper. Mature security programs evolve by layering frameworks, not replacing them.

ISO 27001 Information Security Management: A Comprehensive Framework for Modern Organizations

Zero Trust Architecture to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Controls Crosswalk

Tags: Cybersecurity Frameworks

Comments (0)

Jan 24 2026

ISO 27001 Information Security Management: A Comprehensive Framework for Modern Organizations

Category: ISO 27k,ISO 42001,vCISO — disc7 @ 4:01 pm

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

iso27001-framework-for-modern-orgs-infographic Download

Tags: isms, iso 27001

Comments (0)

Jan 24 2026

Smart Contract Security: Why Audits Matter Before Deployment

Category: Information Security,Internal Audit,Smart Contract — disc7 @ 12:57 pm

Smart Contracts: Overview and Example

What is a Smart Contract?

A smart contract is a self-executing program deployed on a blockchain that automatically enforces the terms of an agreement when predefined conditions are met. Once deployed, the code is immutable and executes deterministically – the same inputs always produce the same outputs, and execution is verified by the blockchain network.

Potential Use Case

Escrow for Freelance Payments: A client deposits funds into a smart contract when hiring a freelancer. When the freelancer submits deliverables and the client approves (or after a timeout period), the contract automatically releases payment. No intermediary needed, and both parties can trust the transparent code logic.

Example Smart Contract

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.20;

contract SimpleEscrow {
    address public client;
    address public freelancer;
    uint256 public amount;
    bool public workCompleted;
    bool public fundsReleased;

    constructor(address _freelancer) payable {
        client = msg.sender;
        freelancer = _freelancer;
        amount = msg.value;
        workCompleted = false;
        fundsReleased = false;
    }

    function releasePayment() external {
        require(msg.sender == client, "Only client can release payment");
        require(!fundsReleased, "Funds already released");
        require(amount > 0, "No funds to release");
        
        fundsReleased = true;
        payable(freelancer).transfer(amount);
    }
}

Fuzz Testing with Foundry

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.20;

import "forge-std/Test.sol";
import "../src/SimpleEscrow.sol";

contract SimpleEscrowFuzzTest is Test {
    SimpleEscrow public escrow;
    address client = address(0x1);
    address freelancer = address(0x2);

    function setUp() public {
        vm.deal(client, 100 ether);
    }

    function testFuzz_ReleasePayment(uint256 depositAmount) public {
        // Bound the fuzz input to reasonable values
        depositAmount = bound(depositAmount, 0.01 ether, 10 ether);
        
        // Deploy contract with fuzzed amount
        vm.prank(client);
        escrow = new SimpleEscrow{value: depositAmount}(freelancer);
        
        uint256 freelancerBalanceBefore = freelancer.balance;
        
        // Client releases payment
        vm.prank(client);
        escrow.releasePayment();
        
        // Assertions
        assertEq(escrow.fundsReleased(), true);
        assertEq(freelancer.balance, freelancerBalanceBefore + depositAmount);
        assertEq(address(escrow).balance, 0);
    }

    function testFuzz_OnlyClientCanRelease(address randomCaller) public {
        vm.assume(randomCaller != client);
        
        vm.prank(client);
        escrow = new SimpleEscrow{value: 1 ether}(freelancer);
        
        // Random address tries to release
        vm.prank(randomCaller);
        vm.expectRevert("Only client can release payment");
        escrow.releasePayment();
    }

    function testFuzz_CannotReleaseMultipleTimes(uint8 attempts) public {
        attempts = uint8(bound(attempts, 2, 10));
        
        vm.prank(client);
        escrow = new SimpleEscrow{value: 1 ether}(freelancer);
        
        // First release succeeds
        vm.prank(client);
        escrow.releasePayment();
        
        // Subsequent attempts fail
        for (uint8 i = 1; i < attempts; i++) {
            vm.prank(client);
            vm.expectRevert("Funds already released");
            escrow.releasePayment();
        }
    }
}

Run the fuzz tests:

forge test --match-contract SimpleEscrowFuzzTest -vvv

Configure fuzz runs in foundry.toml:

[fuzz]
runs = 10000
max_test_rejects = 100000

Benefits of Smart Contract Audits

Security Assurance: Auditors identify vulnerabilities like reentrancy attacks, integer overflows, access control flaws, and logic errors before deployment. Since contracts are immutable, catching bugs pre-deployment is critical.

Economic Protection: Bugs in smart contracts have led to hundreds of millions in losses. An audit protects both project funds and user assets from exploitation.

Compliance & Trust: For regulated industries or institutional adoption, third-party audits provide documented due diligence that security best practices were followed.

Gas Optimization: Auditors often identify inefficient code patterns that unnecessarily increase transaction costs for users.

Best Practice Validation: Audits verify adherence to standards like OpenZeppelin patterns, proper event emission, secure randomness generation, and appropriate use of libraries.

Reputation & Adoption: Projects with reputable audit reports (Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin, Consensys Diligence) gain user confidence and are more likely to attract partnerships and investment.

Given our work at DISC InfoSec implementing governance frameworks, smart contract audits parallel traditional security assessments – they’re about risk identification, control validation, and providing assurance that systems behave as intended under both normal and adversarial conditions.

DISC InfoSec: Smart Contract Audits with Governance Expertise

DISC InfoSec brings a unique advantage to smart contract security: we don’t just audit code, we understand the governance frameworks that give blockchain projects credibility and staying power. As pioneer-practitioners implementing ISO 42001 AI governance and ISO 27001 information security at ShareVault while consulting across regulated industries, we recognize that smart contract audits aren’t just technical exercises—they’re risk management foundations for projects handling real assets and user trust. Our team combines deep Solidity expertise with enterprise compliance experience, delivering comprehensive security assessments that identify vulnerabilities like reentrancy, access control flaws, and logic errors while documenting findings in formats that satisfy both technical teams and regulatory stakeholders. Whether you’re launching a DeFi protocol, NFT marketplace, or tokenized asset platform, DISC InfoSec provides the security assurance and governance documentation needed to protect your users, meet institutional due diligence requirements, and build lasting credibility in the blockchain ecosystem. Contact us at deurainfosec.com to secure your smart contracts before deployment.

Tags: Smart Contract Audit

Comments (0)

Jan 23 2026

When AI Turns Into an Autonomous Hacker: Rethinking Cyber Defense at Machine Speed

Category: AI,AI Guardrails,Cyber resilience,cyber security,Hacking — disc7 @ 8:09 am

“AIs are Getting Better at Finding and Exploiting Internet Vulnerabilities”

Bruce Schneier highlights a significant development: advanced AI models are now better at automatically finding and exploiting vulnerabilities on real networks, not just assisting humans in security tasks.
In a notable evaluation, the Claude Sonnet 4.5 model successfully completed multi-stage attacks across dozens of hosts using standard, open-source tools — without the specialized toolkits previous AI needed.
In one simulation, the model autonomously identified and exploited a public Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) instance — similar to how the infamous Equifax breach worked — and exfiltrated all simulated personal data.
What makes this more concerning is that the model wrote exploit code instantly instead of needing to search for or iterate on information. This shows AI’s increasing autonomous capability.
The implication, Schneier explains, is that barriers to autonomous cyberattack workflows are falling quickly, meaning even moderately resourced attackers can use AI to automate exploitation processes.
Because these AIs can operate without custom cyber toolkits and quickly recognize known vulnerabilities, traditional defenses that rely on the slow cycle of patching and response are less effective.
Schneier underscores that this evolution reflects broader trends in cybersecurity: not only can AI help defenders find and patch issues faster, but it also lowers the cost and skill required for attackers to execute complex attacks.
The rapid progression of these AI capabilities suggests a future where automatic exploitation isn’t just theoretical — it’s becoming practical and potentially widespread.
While Schneier does not explore defensive strategies in depth in this brief post, the message is unmistakable: core security fundamentals—such as timely patching and disciplined vulnerability management—are more critical than ever. I’m confident we’ll see a far more detailed and structured analysis of these implications in a future book.
This development should prompt organizations to rethink traditional workflows and controls, and to invest in strategies that assume attackers may have machine-speed capabilities.

💭 My Opinion

The fact that AI models like Claude Sonnet 4.5 can autonomously identify and exploit vulnerabilities using only common open-source tools marks a pivotal shift in the cybersecurity landscape. What was once a human-driven process requiring deep expertise is now slipping into automated workflows that amplify both speed and scale of attacks. This doesn’t mean all cyberattacks will be AI-driven tomorrow, but it dramatically lowers the barrier to entry for sophisticated attacks.

From a defensive standpoint, it underscores that reactive patch-and-pray security is no longer sufficient. Organizations need to adopt proactive, continuous security practices — including automated scanning, AI-enhanced threat modeling, and Zero Trust architectures — to stay ahead of attackers who may soon operate at machine timescales. This also reinforces the importance of security fundamentals like timely patching and vulnerability management as the first line of defense in a world where AI accelerates both offense and defense.

Tags: Autonomous Hacker, Schneier

Comments (0)

Jan 23 2026

Zero Trust Architecture to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Controls Crosswalk

Category: CISO,ISO 27k,vCISO,Zero trust — disc7 @ 7:33 am

1. What is Zero Trust Security

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
Network Security	Micro-segmentation, NAC, IDS/IPS, TLS, VPN, firewalls	Remove implicit trust inside the network	A.8.20 Network security A.8.21 Security of network services A.8.22 Segregation of networks A.5.14 Information transfer
Application Security	Secure SDLC, SAST/DAST, WAF, RASP, dependency scanning	Prevent application-layer compromise	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
API Security	API gateways, rate limiting, input validation, encryption, monitoring	Secure machine-to-machine trust	A.5.15 Access control A.8.20 Network security A.8.26 Application security requirements A.8.29 Security testing
Data Security	Encryption, DLP, tokenization, masking, access controls, backups	Protect data regardless of location	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
Cloud Security	CASB, cloud IAM, posture management, identity federation, audits	Enforce Zero Trust in shared-responsibility models	A.5.19 Supplier relationships A.5.20 Supplier agreements A.5.21 ICT supply chain security A.5.22 Monitoring supplier services
IoT / Non-Traditional Assets	Device authentication, segmentation, secure boot, firmware updates	Control high-risk unmanaged devices	A.5.9 Asset inventory A.8.1 User endpoint devices A.8.8 Technical vulnerability management
Monitoring & Incident Response	Logging, SIEM, anomaly detection, SOAR	Assume breach and respond rapidly	A.8.15 Logging A.8.16 Monitoring activities A.5.24 Incident management planning A.5.25 Incident assessment A.5.26 Incident response

Tags: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Zero Trust Architecture

Comments (0)

Jan 22 2026

CrowdStrike Sets the Standard for Responsible AI in Cybersecurity with ISO/IEC 42001 Certification

Category: AI,AI Governance,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 9:47 am

CrowdStrike has achieved ISO/IEC 42001:2023 certification, demonstrating a mature, independently audited approach to the responsible design, development, and operation of AI-powered cybersecurity. The certification covers key components of the CrowdStrike Falcon® platform, including Endpoint Security, Falcon® Insight XDR, and Charlotte AI, validating that AI governance is embedded across its core capabilities.

ISO 42001 is the world’s first AI management system standard and provides organizations with a globally recognized framework for managing AI risks while aligning with emerging regulatory and ethical expectations. By achieving this certification, CrowdStrike reinforces customer trust in how it governs AI and positions itself as a leader in safely scaling AI innovation to counter AI-enabled cyber threats.

CrowdStrike leadership emphasized that responsible AI governance is foundational for cybersecurity vendors. Being among the first in the industry to achieve ISO 42001 signals operational maturity and discipline in how AI is developed and operated across the Falcon platform, rather than treating AI governance as an afterthought.

The announcement also highlights the growing reality of AI-accelerated threats. Adversaries are increasingly using AI to automate and scale attacks, forcing defenders to rely on AI-powered security tools. Unlike attackers, defenders must operate under governance, accountability, and regulatory constraints, making standards-based and risk-aware AI essential for effective defense.

CrowdStrike’s AI-native Falcon platform continuously analyzes behavior across the attack surface to deliver real-time protection. Charlotte AI represents the shift toward an “agentic SOC,” where intelligent agents automate routine security tasks under human supervision, enabling analysts to focus on higher-value strategic decisions instead of manual alert handling.

Key components of this agentic approach include mission-ready security agents trained on real-world incident response expertise, no-code tools that allow organizations to build custom agents, and an orchestration layer that coordinates CrowdStrike, custom, and third-party agents into a unified defense system guided by human oversight.

Importantly, CrowdStrike positions Charlotte AI within a model of bounded autonomy. This ensures security teams retain control over AI-driven decisions and automation, supported by strong governance, data protection, and controls suitable for highly regulated environments.

The ISO 42001 certification was awarded following an extensive independent audit that assessed CrowdStrike’s AI management system, including governance structures, risk management processes, development practices, and operational controls. This reinforces CrowdStrike’s broader commitment to protecting customer data and deploying AI responsibly in the cybersecurity domain.

ISO/IEC 42001 certifications need to be carried out by an accredited certification body recognized by an ISO accreditation forum (e.g., ANAB, UKAS, NABCB). Many organizations disclose the auditor (e.g., TÜV SÜD, BSI, Schellman, Sensiba) to add credibility, but CrowdStrike’s announcement omitted that detail.

Opinion: Benefits of ISO/IEC 42001 Certification

ISO/IEC 42001 certification provides tangible strategic and operational benefits, especially for security and AI-driven organizations. First, it establishes a common, auditable framework for AI governance, helping organizations move beyond vague “responsible AI” claims to demonstrable, enforceable practices. This is increasingly critical as regulators, customers, and boards demand clarity on how AI risks are managed.

Second, ISO 42001 creates trust at scale. For customers, it reduces due diligence friction by providing third-party validation of AI governance maturity. For vendors like CrowdStrike, it becomes a competitive differentiator—particularly in regulated industries where buyers need assurance that AI systems are controlled, explainable, and accountable.

Finally, ISO 42001 enables safer innovation. By embedding risk management, oversight, and lifecycle controls into AI development and operations, organizations can adopt advanced and agentic AI capabilities with confidence, without increasing systemic or regulatory risk. In practice, this allows companies to move faster with AI—paradoxically by putting stronger guardrails in place.

Tags: CrowdStrike

Comments (0)

Jan 21 2026

AI Security and AI Governance: Why They Must Converge to Build Trustworthy AI

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails — disc7 @ 1:42 pm

AI Security and AI Governance are often discussed as separate disciplines, but the industry is realizing they are inseparable. Over the past year, conversations have revolved around AI governance—whether AI should be used and under what principles—and AI security—how AI systems are protected from threats. This separation is no longer sustainable as AI adoption accelerates.

The core reality is simple: governance without security is ineffective, and security without governance is incomplete. If an organization cannot secure its AI systems, it has no real control over them. Likewise, securing systems without clear governance leaves unanswered questions about legality, ethics, and accountability.

This divide exists largely because governance and security evolved in different organizational domains. Governance typically sits with legal, risk, and compliance teams, focusing on fairness, transparency, and ethical use. Security, on the other hand, is owned by technical teams and SOCs, concentrating on attacks such as prompt injection, model manipulation, and data leakage.

When these functions operate in silos, organizations unintentionally create “Shadow AI” risks. Governance teams may publish policies that lack technical enforcement, while security teams may harden systems without understanding whether the AI itself is compliant or trustworthy.

The governance gap appears when policies exist only on paper. Without security controls to enforce them, rules become optional guidance rather than operational reality, leaving organizations exposed to regulatory and reputational risk.

The security gap emerges when protection is applied without context. Systems may be technically secure, yet still rely on biased, non-compliant, or poorly governed models, creating hidden risks that security tooling alone cannot detect.

To move forward, AI risk must be treated as a unified discipline. A combined “Governance-Security” mindset requires shared inventories of models and data pipelines, continuous monitoring of both technical vulnerabilities and ethical drift, and automated enforcement that connects policy directly to controls.

Organizations already adopting this integrated approach are gaining a competitive advantage. Their objective goes beyond compliance checklists; they are building AI systems that are trustworthy, resilient by design, and compliant by default—earning confidence from regulators, customers, and partners alike.

My opinion: AI governance and AI security should no longer be separate conversations or teams. Treating them as one integrated function is not just best practice—it is inevitable. Organizations that fail to unify these disciplines will struggle with unmanaged risk, while those that align them early will define the standard for trustworthy and resilient AI.

Tags: AI Governance, AI security

Comments (0)

Jan 21 2026

How AI Evolves: A Layered Path from Automation to Autonomy

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails,Information Security — disc7 @ 11:47 am

Understanding the Layers of AI

The “Layers of AI” model helps explain how artificial intelligence evolves from simple rule-based logic into autonomous, goal-driven systems. Each layer builds on the capabilities of the one beneath it, adding complexity, adaptability, and decision-making power. Understanding these layers is essential for grasping not just how AI works technically, but also where risks, governance needs, and human oversight must be applied as systems move closer to autonomy.

Classical AI: The Rule-Based Foundation

Classical AI represents the earliest form of artificial intelligence, relying on explicit rules, logic, and symbolic representations of knowledge. Systems such as expert systems and logic-based reasoning engines operate deterministically, meaning they behave exactly as programmed. While limited in flexibility, Classical AI laid the groundwork for structured reasoning, decision trees, and formal problem-solving that still influence modern systems.

Machine Learning: Learning from Data

Machine Learning marked a shift from hard-coded rules to systems that learn patterns from data. Techniques such as supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning allow models to improve performance over time without explicit reprogramming. Tasks like classification, regression, and prediction became scalable, enabling AI to adapt to real-world variability rather than relying solely on predefined logic.

Neural Networks: Mimicking the Brain

Neural Networks introduced architectures inspired by the human brain, using interconnected layers of artificial neurons. Concepts such as perceptrons, activation functions, cost functions, and backpropagation allow these systems to learn complex representations. This layer enables non-linear problem solving and forms the structural backbone for more advanced AI capabilities.

Deep Learning: Scaling Intelligence

Deep Learning extends neural networks by stacking many hidden layers, allowing models to extract increasingly abstract features from raw data. Architectures such as CNNs, RNNs, LSTMs, transformers, and autoencoders power breakthroughs in vision, speech, language, and pattern recognition. This layer made AI practical at scale, especially with large datasets and high-performance computing.

Generative AI: Creating New Content

Generative AI focuses on producing new data rather than simply analyzing existing information. Large Language Models (LLMs), diffusion models, VAEs, and multimodal systems can generate text, images, audio, video, and code. This layer introduces creativity, probabilistic reasoning, and uncertainty, but also raises concerns around hallucinations, bias, intellectual property, and trustworthiness.

Agentic AI: Acting with Purpose

Agentic AI adds decision-making and goal-oriented behavior on top of generative models. These systems can plan tasks, retain memory, use tools, and take actions autonomously across environments. Rather than responding to a single prompt, agentic systems operate continuously, making them powerful—but also significantly more complex to govern, audit, and control.

Autonomous Execution: AI Without Constant Human Input

At the highest layer, AI systems can execute tasks independently with minimal human intervention. Autonomous execution combines planning, tool use, feedback loops, and adaptive behavior to operate in real-world conditions. This layer blurs the line between software and decision-maker, raising critical questions about accountability, safety, alignment, and ethical boundaries.

My Opinion: From Foundations to Autonomy

The layered model of AI is useful because it makes one thing clear: autonomy is not a single leap—it is an accumulation of capabilities. Each layer introduces new power and new risk. While organizations are eager to adopt agentic and autonomous AI, many still lack maturity in governing the foundational layers beneath them. In my view, responsible AI adoption must follow the same layered discipline—strong foundations, clear controls at each level, and escalating governance as systems gain autonomy. Skipping layers in governance while accelerating layers in capability is where most AI risk emerges.

Tags: AI Layers, Automation, Layered AI

Comments (0)

Jan 21 2026

The Hidden Cyber Risks of AI Adoption No One Is Managing

Category: AI,AI Governance,Information Security,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 9:47 am

“Why AI adoption requires a dedicated approach to cyber governance”

1. Rapid AI Adoption and Rising Risks
AI tools are being adopted at an extraordinary pace across businesses, offering clear benefits like efficiency, reduced errors, and increased revenue. However, this rapid uptake also dramatically expands the enterprise attack surface. Each AI model, prompt, plugin, API connection, training dataset, or dependency introduces new vulnerability points, requiring stronger and continuous security measures than traditional SaaS governance frameworks were designed to handle.

2. Traditional Governance Falls Short for AI
Many security teams simply repurpose existing governance approaches designed for SaaS vendors when evaluating AI tools. This is problematic because data fed into AI systems can be exposed far more widely and may even be retained permanently by the AI provider—something that most conventional governance models don’t account for.

3. Explainability and Trust Issues
AI outputs can be opaque due to black-box models and phenomena like “hallucinations,” where the system generates confident but incorrect information. These characteristics make verification difficult and can introduce false data into important business decisions—another challenge existing governance frameworks weren’t built to manage.

4. Pressure to Move Fast
Business units are pushing for rapid AI adoption to stay competitive, which puts security teams in a bind. Existing third-party risk processes are slow, manual, and rigid, creating bottlenecks that force organizations to choose between agility and safety. Modern governance must be agile and scalable to match the pace of AI integration.

5. Gaps in Current Cyber Governance
Governance and Risk Compliance (GRC) programs commonly monitor direct vendors but often fail to extend visibility far enough into fourth or Nth-party risks. Even when organizations are compliant with regulations like DORA or NIS2, they may still face significant vulnerabilities because compliance checks only provide snapshots in time, missing dynamic risks across complex supply chains.

6. Limited Tool Effectiveness and Emerging Solutions
Most organizations acknowledge that current GRC tools are inadequate for managing AI risks. In response, many CISOs are turning to AI-based vendor risk assessment solutions that can monitor dependencies and interactions continuously rather than relying solely on point-in-time assessments. However, these tools must themselves be trustworthy and validated to avoid generating misleading results.

7. Practical Risk-Reduction Strategies
Effective governance requires proactive strategies like mapping data flows to uncover blind spots, enforcing output traceability, keeping humans in the oversight loop, and replacing one-off questionnaires with continuous monitoring. These measures help identify and mitigate risks earlier and more reliably.

8. Safe AI Management Is Possible
Deploying AI securely is achievable, but only with robust, AI-adapted governance—dynamic vendor onboarding, automated monitoring, continuous risk evaluation, and policies tailored to the unique nature of AI tools. Security teams must evolve their practices and frameworks to ensure AI is both adopted responsibly and aligned with business goals.

My Opinion

The article makes a compelling case that treating AI like traditional software or SaaS tools is a governance mistake. AI’s dynamic nature—its opaque decision processes, broad data exposure, and rapid proliferation via APIs and plugins—demands purpose-built governance mechanisms that are continuous, adaptive, and integrated with how organizations actually operate, not just how they report. This aligns with broader industry observations that shadow AI and decentralized AI use (e.g., “bring your own AI”) create blind spots that static governance models can’t handle.

In short, cybersecurity leaders should move beyond check-the-box compliance and toward risk-based, real-time oversight that embraces human-AI collaboration, leverages AI for risk monitoring, and embeds governance throughout the AI lifecycle. Done well, this strengthens security and unlocks AI’s value; done poorly, it exposes organizations to unnecessary harm.

Tags: Cyber Governance Model

Comments (0)

Jan 19 2026

Lessons from the Chain: Case Studies in Smart Contract Security Failures and Resilience

Category: Security Incident,Smart Contract — disc7 @ 10:07 am

1. Smart contract security is best understood through real-world experience, where both failures and successes reveal how theoretical risks manifest in production systems. Case studies provide concrete evidence of how design choices, coding practices, and governance decisions directly impact security outcomes in blockchain projects.

2. By examining past incidents, developers and security leaders gain clarity on how vulnerabilities emerge—not only from flawed code, but also from poor assumptions, rushed deployments, and insufficient review processes. These lessons underscore that smart contract security is as much about discipline as it is about technology.

3. High-profile breaches, such as the DAO hack, serve as foundational learning points for the industry. These incidents exposed how subtle logic flaws and unanticipated interactions could be exploited, leading to massive financial losses and long-term reputational damage.

4. Beyond recounting what happened, such case studies break down the technical root causes—reentrancy issues, improper state management, and inadequate access controls—highlighting how oversights at the design stage can cascade into catastrophic failures.

5. A recurring theme across breaches is the absence of rigorous auditing and threat modeling. These events reinforced the necessity of independent security reviews, formal verification, and adversarial thinking before smart contracts are deployed on immutable ledgers.

6. In contrast, this also highlights projects that responded to early failures by fundamentally improving their security posture. These teams embedded security best practices from the outset, demonstrating that proactive design significantly reduces exploitability.

7. Successful implementations show how learning from industry mistakes leads to stronger architectures, including modular contract design, upgrade mechanisms, and clearly defined trust boundaries. Adaptation, rather than avoidance, became the path to resilience.

8. From these collective experiences, industry standards began to emerge. Structured auditing processes, standardized testing frameworks, bug bounty programs, and open collaboration among developers now form the backbone of modern smart contract security practices.

9. The chapter integrates these lessons into actionable guidance, helping readers translate historical insights into practical controls. This synthesis bridges the gap between knowing past failures and preventing future ones in active blockchain projects.

10. Ultimately, these case studies encourage a holistic, security-first mindset. By internalizing both cautionary tales and proven successes, developers and project leaders are empowered to make security an integral part of their development lifecycle, contributing to a safer and more resilient blockchain ecosystem.

It’s a strong and practical piece that strikes a good balance between cautionary lessons and actionable insights. I like that it doesn’t just recount high-profile hacks like the DAO incident but also highlights how teams adapted and improved security practices afterward. That makes it forward-looking, not just retrospective.

The emphasis on embedding security into the development lifecycle is especially important—it moves smart contract security from being an afterthought to a core part of project design. One minor improvement could be adding more concrete examples of modern tools or frameworks (like formal verification tools, auditing platforms, or automated testing suites) to make the guidance even more actionable.

Overall, it’s informative for developers, project managers, and even executives looking to understand blockchain risks, and it effectively encourages a proactive, security-first mindset.

Tags: Lessons from the Chain

Comments (0)

Jan 19 2026

Cyber Resilience by Design: Why the EU CRA Is a Leadership Test, Not Just a Regulation

Category: Cyber resilience,cyber security,Cyber Strategy,Information Security — disc7 @ 8:52 am

The EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) marks a significant shift in how cybersecurity is viewed across digital products and services. Rather than treating security as a post-development compliance task, the Act emphasizes embedding cybersecurity into products from the design stage and maintaining it throughout their entire lifecycle. This approach reframes cyber resilience as an ongoing responsibility that blends technical safeguards with organizational discipline.

At its core, the CRA reinforces the idea that resilience is not achieved through tools alone. Secure-by-design principles require coordinated processes, clear ownership, and accountability across product development, operations, and incident response. By aligning with lifecycle thinking—similar to disaster recovery planning—the Act pushes organizations to anticipate failure, prepare for disruption, and recover quickly when incidents occur.

Leadership plays a decisive role in making this shift effective. True cyber resilience demands a top-down commitment where executives actively prioritize security in strategic planning and resource allocation. When leaders set expectations that security is integral to innovation, teams are empowered to build resilient systems without viewing cybersecurity as a barrier to progress.

When organizations treat cybersecurity as a business enabler rather than a cost center, the benefits extend beyond compliance. They gain stronger risk management, greater operational continuity, and increased trust from customers and partners. In this way, the EU CRA aligns closely with disaster recovery principles—prepare early, plan holistically, and lead decisively—to create sustainable cyber resilience in an increasingly complex digital landscape.

My opinion:

The EU Cyber Resilience Act is one of the most pragmatic cybersecurity regulations to date because it shifts the conversation from after-the-fact compliance to engineering discipline and leadership accountability. That change is long overdue. Cybersecurity failures rarely happen because controls were unknown—they happen because security was deprioritized during design, delivery, or scaling.

What I particularly agree with is the implicit alignment between cyber resilience and disaster recovery thinking. Both accept that failure is inevitable and focus instead on preparedness, impact reduction, and rapid recovery. This mindset is far more realistic than the traditional “prevent everything” security narrative, especially in complex software supply chains.

However, regulation alone will not create resilience. Organizations that approach the CRA as a documentation exercise will miss its real value. The winners will be those whose leadership genuinely internalizes security as a strategic capability—one that protects innovation, brand trust, and long-term revenue. In that sense, the CRA is less a technical mandate and more a leadership test.

Cyber Resilience Act

Tags: EU CRA

Comments (0)

Jan 16 2026

AI Is Changing Cybercrime: 10 Threat Landscape Takeaways You Can’t Ignore

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails — disc7 @ 1:49 pm

AI & Cyber Threat Landscape

1. Growing AI Risks in Cybersecurity
Artificial intelligence has rapidly become a central factor in cybersecurity, acting as both a powerful defense and a serious threat vector. Attackers have quickly adopted AI tools to amplify their capabilities, and many executives now consider AI-related cyber risks among their top organizational concerns.

2. AI’s Dual Role
While AI helps defenders detect threats faster, it also enables cybercriminals to automate attacks at scale. This rapid adoption by attackers is reshaping the overall cyber threat landscape going into 2026.

3. Deepfakes and Impersonation Techniques
One of the most alarming developments is the use of deepfakes and voice cloning. These tools create highly convincing impersonations of executives or trusted individuals, fooling employees and even automated systems.

4. Enhanced Phishing and Messaging
AI has made phishing attacks more sophisticated. Instead of generic scam messages, attackers use generative AI to craft highly personalized and convincing messages that leverage data collected from public sources.

5. Automated Reconnaissance
AI now automates what used to be manual reconnaissance. Malicious scripts scout corporate websites and social profiles to build detailed target lists much faster than human attackers ever could.

6. Adaptive Malware
AI-driven malware is emerging that can modify its code and behavior in real time to evade detection. Unlike traditional threats, this adaptive malware learns from failed attempts and evolves to be more effective.

7. Shadow AI and Data Exposure
“Shadow AI” refers to employees using third-party AI tools without permission. These tools can inadvertently capture sensitive information, which might be stored, shared, or even reused by AI providers, posing significant data leakage risks.

8. Long-Term Access and Silent Attacks
Modern AI-enabled attacks often aim for persistence—maintaining covert access for weeks or months to gather credentials and monitor systems before striking, rather than causing immediate disruption.

9. Evolving Defense Needs
Traditional security systems are increasingly inadequate against these dynamic, AI-driven threats. Organizations must embrace adaptive defenses, real-time monitoring, and identity-centric controls to keep pace.

10. Human Awareness Remains Critical
Technology alone won’t stop these threats. A strong “human firewall” — knowledgeable employees and ongoing awareness training — is crucial to recognize and prevent emerging AI-enabled attacks.

My Opinion

AI’s influence on the cyber threat landscape is both inevitable and transformative. On one hand, AI empowers defenders with unprecedented speed and analytical depth. On the other, it’s lowering the barrier to entry for attackers, enabling highly automated, convincing attacks that traditional defenses struggle to catch. This duality makes cybersecurity a fundamentally different game than it was even a few years ago.

Organizations can’t afford to treat AI simply as a defensive tool or a checkbox in their security stack. They must build AI-aware risk management strategies, integrate continuous monitoring and identity-centric defenses, and invest in employee education. Most importantly, cybersecurity leaders need to assume that attackers will adopt AI faster than defenders — so resilience and adaptive defense are not optional, they’re mandatory.

The key takeaway? Cybersecurity in 2026 and beyond won’t just be about technology. It will be a strategic balance between innovation, human awareness, and proactive risk governance.

Tags: AI Threat Landscape, Deepfakes, Shadow AI

Comments (0)

Jan 16 2026

AI Cybersecurity and Standardisation: Bridging the Gap Between ISO Standards and the EU AI Act

Category: CISO,cyber security,Information Security,ISO 27k,ISO 42001,vCISO — disc7 @ 9:58 am

Summary of Sections 2.0 to 5.2 from the ENISA report Cybersecurity of AI and Standardisation, followed by my opinion.

2. Scope: Defining AI and Cybersecurity of AI

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.

Source: ENISA – Cybersecurity of AI and Standardisation

Tags: AI Cybersecurity, EU AI Act, ISO standards

Comments (0)

« Previous Page — Next Page »