Early Evaluation Methods for Cybersecurity Programs

The OWASP® Foundation Threat and Safeguard Matrix (TaSM) is designed to provide a structured, action-oriented approach to cybersecurity planning. This work on the OWASP website by Ross Young explains how to use the OWASP TaSM and as it relates to GenAI risks: https://lnkd.in/g3ZRypWw These new risks require organizations to think beyond traditional cybersecurity threats and focus on new vulnerabilities specific to AI systems. * * * How to use the TaSM in general: 1) Identify Major Threats - Begin by listing your organization’s key risks. Include common threats like web application attacks, phishing, third-party data breaches, supply chain attacks, and DoS attacks and unique threats, such as insider risks or fraud. - Use frameworks like STRIDE-LM or NIST 800-30 to explore detailed scenarios. 2) Map Threats to NIST Cybersecurity Functions Align each threat with the NIST functions: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. 3) Define Safeguards Mitigate threats by implementing safeguards in 3 areas: - People: Training and awareness programs. - Processes: Policies and operational procedures. - Technology: Tools like firewalls, encryption, and antivirus. 4) Add Metrics to Track Progress - Attach measurable goals to safeguards. - Summarize metrics into a report for leadership. Include KPIs to show successes, challenges, and next steps. 5) Monitor and Adjust Regularly review metrics, identify gaps, and adjust strategies. Use trends to prioritize improvements and investments. 6) Communicate Results Present a concise summary of progress, gaps, and actionable next steps to leadership, ensuring alignment with organizational goals. * * * The TaSM can be expanded for Risk Committees by adding a column to list each department’s top 3-5 threats. This allows the committee to evaluate risks across the company and ensure they are mitigated in a collaborative way. E.g., Cyber can work with HR to train employees and with Legal to ensure compliance when addressing phishing attacks that harm the brand. * * * How the TaSM connects to GenAI risks: The TaSM can be used to address AI-related risks by systematically mapping specific GenAI threats - such as sensitive data leaks, malicious AI supply chains, hallucinated promises, data overexposure, AI misuse, unethical recommendations, and bias-fueled liability - to appropriate safeguards. Focus on the top 3-4 AI threats most critical to your business and use the TaSM to outline safeguards for these high-priority risks, e.g.: - Identify: Audit systems and data usage to understand vulnerabilities. - Protect: Enforce policies, restrict access, and train employees on safe AI usage. - Detect: Monitor for unauthorized data uploads or unusual AI behavior. - Respond: Define incident response plans for managing AI-related breaches or misuse. - Recover: Develop plans to retrain models, address bias, or mitigate legal fallout.

𝐂𝐲𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 A cyber board readiness self-assessment is a structured process for boards to evaluate their preparedness and effectiveness in overseeing cybersecurity risks and strategy. The image you provided outlines a practical, board-focused self-assessment framework based on global best practices, key questions, and clear red flags for each area. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐔𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 🔹 Ask the Board-Level Questions: Use the questions in each key area to guide a discussion or survey among board members. 🔹Identify Red Flags: For any area where the red flag applies, recognize it as a gap needing urgent attention. 🔹Benchmark Against Best Practices: Compare your current practices to the "Global Best Practice Expectation" column to identify areas for improvement. 🔹Assign Action Items: For each gap, assign responsibility and a timeline for remediation, ensuring follow-up and accountability. 🔹Repeat Regularly: Cyber risks evolve, so repeat this assessment at least annually or after major organizational changes. 𝐀𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 🔹Industry Frameworks: Consider aligning your assessment with recognized frameworks such as NCSC’s Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF), Cyber Essentials, or ISO 27001 for a more comprehensive review. 🔹External Benchmarking: Periodically benchmark against industry peers and standards to ensure your board’s cyber oversight remains robust and current. 🔹Continuous Improvement: Use lessons learned from incidents, drills, and assessments to strengthen your cyber governance and resilience over time. In summary, This self-assessment enables boards to systematically evaluate their cyber oversight maturity, identify weaknesses, and drive continuous improvement in cybersecurity governance and risk management. 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐫 - This post has only been shared for an educational and knowledge-sharing purpose related to Technologies. #technology #learning #cybersecurity #ciso

MedTech cybersecurity starts with a secure architecture. Follow this process to avoid painful pitfalls late in the game: Avoid: ↳ Waiting till the last minute to “add cybersecurity” ↳ Using standard risk management (ISO14971) for cybersecurity ↳ Writing code before your architecture security risk is acceptable Instead:  ↳ Incorporate cybersecurity across the total product life cycle ↳ Follow FDA’s cybersecurity guidance and ANSI/AAMI SW96 ↳ Analyze and evaluate architecture security  before starting to code I’ll drop a link to the overall cybersecurity process in the comments. Below is a zoomed-in view of the architecture phase. Follow these steps:  ↳ Start with Design Inputs. That includes software requirements for meeting user needs along with safety and usability risk controls.  ↳ Define your software architecture.  ↳ Generate the relevant architecture security views.  ↳ Perform threat modeling. There are various valid approaches. You just need one or two. We like the STRIDE Methodology during the architecture phase.  ↳ Threats and vulnerabilities will be outputs of threat modeling. ↳ Assess the security risk of the threats and vulnerabilities using tools like the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS). ↳ Evaluate whether the security residual risk is acceptable based on criteria you establish in your Security Risk Management Plan. ↳ If the security risk is acceptable, proceed to design your system. ↳ Otherwise, establish risk controls and feed them back into your “design inputs.”  ↳ Update your architecture to incorporate the new security risk controls and go through the loop again until all security risks are acceptable. PS. We’re working on a medical device cybersecurity e-book. Let me know in the comments if you want me to DM you when it’s ready.

Attention leaders who are responsible for providing guidance/oversight/etc to their cybersecurity/security programs... One of the best questions you can ask when arriving at a new organization or trying to determine your risk in a current org is to do a simple maturity assessment of the overall enterprise cybersecurity program. It's not a complete answer, but it will help you make sure you know what additional questions to ask... National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has made this simple for us with the Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) and particularly 2.0. No I don't work for NIST, but I do like free and this is free... for everyone. So yes I push free as much as I also like ISO/SOC2/etc. Just open up this doc and take a look. All you need to do is assess all the functions, categories, and sub-categories with your best guess based on input from the various elements of the security org based on CMMI scoring from 1 to 5. If you're fancy and have resources, you can contract it out to get a good independent third-party assessment. Find everything below a 3 and target to get to a 3 within a year. Assign an accountable executive at each level, with the CISO overall responsible at each function's level. Then VP/next-level/etc down for the categories and then for sub-categories. Formalize these areas of accountability across the company. Formally assign team members to each area as well and have them identify the tasks needed to mature. Drive tasks to completion... Rinse, wash, and repeat annually at a minimum. Will this compliance exercise replace security? Absolutely not, but it will help maintain visibility into all the areas where you need work (these are your risk areas!). I will always argue that you can't have effective security w/o some compliance and vice versa. If you encounter people who tell you this is a waste of time and you should just focus on security/technical controls/etc and not check the box security, they don't know what they are talking about no matter how senior they are. Figure out how to integrate them into the process and draw on their expertise, but keep driving this high-level alignment. You can gut-check the results against things like Center for Internet Security Critical Security Controls (https://lnkd.in/ezzds_eM) (Previously known at top 20) This is how you scope, assess, build, mature, and manage security programs by establishing effective governance to ensure continued improvement. Use roll-ups to brief risk to the c-suite along with key security risk through distilled metrics from vuln mgmt, sec ops, insider threat, and other areas of the program. Too easy... #cybersecurity #NIST #board #executiveleadership

There was something I did not audit in year one. Not because it was not on the list. Because I was not sure I wanted to know the answer. I had built a set of stakeholder relationships in the first year. I had put genuine effort into them — regular conversations, deliberate framing, making sure the right people understood the program's value. From the inside, it felt like it was working. In year two, I actually tested it. Not with a survey. By asking people what they would do if I brought them a budget request they had not anticipated. By watching how they responded when a security issue reached their desk and I was not in the room. By noticing which ones called me first and which ones found out what I thought after the decision was made. Some of the relationships were as strong as I had believed. Some were not. The year-two audit is not about finding problems. It is about replacing your year-one assumptions with year-two data. You cannot do it in year one because you do not have enough signal. You should not skip it in year two because without it, you are still running the program on assumptions that may not have survived contact with reality. Four areas to audit before year two ends: 1. Your program assumptions. What did you assume would be true about your environment, your regulatory posture, or your threat landscape that year-two data can now confirm or disprove? If you have not looked, look. 2. Your untested controls. Every control that has never responded to a real event is a theoretical control. Which of the controls you built in year one have been tested under real conditions — and which have not? 3. Your team. Year two has better data. Where is the strength and where is it not? The team you thought you had and the team you actually have are the same team — year two just provides better signal. 4. Your stakeholder relationships. Not how warm they feel. How they perform when you need them to hold. Which ones absorb a security recommendation without pushing back. Which ones surface a concern before it becomes a problem. Which ones, if you are honest, you have been cultivating without actually testing. The Year-Two Security Program Audit Checklist — with the full evaluation framework and the year-two metrics that actually tell you something — is available to newsletter subscribers in Thursday's issue. 📧 Subscribe: https://lnkd.in/gKv_jyAy #CISO #SecurityLeadership #SecurityProgram #CareerGrowth #CyberSecurity

🚨 Mastering IT Risk Assessment: A Strategic Framework for Information Security In cybersecurity, guesswork is not strategy. Effective risk management begins with a structured, evidence-based risk assessment process that connects technical threats to business impact. This framework — adapted from leading standards such as NIST SP 800-30 and ISO/IEC 27005 — breaks down how to transform raw threat data into actionable risk intelligence: 1️⃣ System Characterization – Establish clear system boundaries. Define the hardware, software, data, interfaces, people, and mission-critical functions within scope. 🔹 Output: System boundaries, criticality, and sensitivity profile. 2️⃣ Threat Identification – Identify credible threat sources — from external adversaries to insider risks and environmental hazards. 🔹 Output: Comprehensive threat statement. 3️⃣ Vulnerability Identification – Pinpoint systemic weaknesses that can be exploited by these threats. 🔹 Output: Catalog of potential vulnerabilities. 4️⃣ Control Analysis – Evaluate the design and operational effectiveness of current and planned controls. 🔹 Output: Control inventory with performance assessment. 5️⃣ Likelihood Determination – Assess the probability that a given threat will exploit a specific vulnerability, considering existing mitigations. 🔹 Output: Likelihood rating. 6️⃣ Impact Analysis – Quantify potential losses in terms of confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information assets. 🔹 Output: Impact rating. 7️⃣ Risk Determination – Integrate likelihood and impact to determine inherent and residual risk levels. 🔹 Output: Ranked risk register. 8️⃣ Control Recommendations – Prioritize security enhancements to reduce risk to acceptable levels. 🔹 Output: Targeted control recommendations. 9️⃣ Results Documentation – Compile the process, findings, and mitigation actions in a formal risk assessment report for governance and audit traceability. 🔹 Output: Comprehensive risk assessment report. When executed properly, this process transforms IT threat data into strategic business intelligence, enabling leaders to make informed, risk-based decisions that safeguard the organization’s assets and reputation. 👉 Bottom line: An organization’s resilience isn’t built on tools — it’s built on a disciplined, repeatable approach to understanding and managing risk. #CyberSecurity #RiskManagement #GRC #InformationSecurity #ISO27001 #NIST #Infosec #RiskAssessment #Governance

Most product founders (or aspiring founders) think cybersecurity is something that can be added on as we go. In 2024, 68 % of breaches involved a non‑malicious human element, like misconfigurations or coding oversights. Security isn’t a checkbox at launch; it’s a mindset woven into every sprint, every pull request, every architectural decision. Here’s a playbook we, at GrayCyan, have developed: 1️⃣. Threat Model Upfront Before you write a single line of code, map out your attack surface. What data are you storing? Who could target it, and how? A lightweight threat model (even a few whiteboard sketches) helps you prioritize controls around your riskiest assets. 2️⃣. Secure Design Patterns Adopt proven patterns—like input validation, output encoding, and the principle of least privilege—right in your prototypes. Whether it’s microservices or monolithic apps, enforcing separation of concerns and privilege boundaries early means fewer surprises down the road. 3️⃣. Shift‑Left Testing Integrate static analysis (SAST), dependency scanning, and secret‑detection tools into your CI/CD pipeline. Automate these checks so that every pull request tells you if you’ve introduced a risky dependency or an insecure configuration—before it ever reaches production. 4️⃣. Continuous Code Reviews Encourage a culture of peer review focused on security. Build short checklists (e.g., avoid hard‑coded credentials, enforce secure defaults) and run them in review sessions. Rotate reviewers so everyone gets exposure to security pitfalls across the codebase. 5️⃣. Dynamic & Pen‑Test Cycles Complement static checks with dynamic application security testing (DAST) and periodic penetration tests. Even a quarterly or biannual pen‑test will surface issues you can’t catch with automated scans—like business‑logic flaws or subtle authentication gaps. 6️⃣. Educate & Empower Your Team Run regular “lunch‑and‑learn” workshops on topics like OWASP Top 10, secure cloud configurations, or incident response drills. When developers think like attackers, they write more resilient code—and spot risks early. 7️⃣. Plan for the Inevitable No system is 100 % immune. Build an incident response plan, practice it with tabletop exercises, and establish clear escalation paths. That way, when something does go wrong, you move from panic to precision—minimizing impact and restoring trust. At GrayCyan, we partner with founders (and upcoming founders that have amazing product ideas) to embed these practices as we build apps. If you’re ready to turn security from an afterthought into your competitive advantage, let’s connect. Drop a comment or send us a DM, and let’s bake trust into your next release. #DevSecOps #SecureByDesign #SecureDevelopment #DataProtection #TechStartups GrayCyan AI Consultants & Developers

Most cyber programs have enough tools. They don’t have enough clarity. I’ve spent 26 years watching this play out from almost every seat. Security leader. Consultant. Executive. Advisor. The person brought in when cyber matters, but no one agrees on what’s next. The pattern is the same. The security team talks about tools, controls, and alerts. The business hears cost, complexity, and delays. That’s where cyber programs get stuck. Not because the work is wrong. 🧙🏼♂️ Because the program was never built from the business outward. It was pieced together through best efforts, urgent needs, audits, incidents, and tool purchases. That may create activity. It rarely creates a defensible risk program. Start with C.L.A.R.I.T.Y. It’s how I build effective cybersecurity programs. C: Clarify the Business Mission What does the business do, what must stay operational, and what disruption would hurt most? L: Learn Leadership’s Risk Appetite How does leadership view risk, speed, cost, regulation, and resilience? A: Assess Assets & Business Impact Which systems, data, vendors, and workflows create operational or financial exposure? R: Review Requirements Which regulatory, contractual, insurance, audit, and client obligations define the baseline? I: Identify the Target State Choose the right framework, assess the gaps, and define the maturity level the business needs. T: Translate into Executive Buy-In Turn cyber priorities into language leadership can fund, support, and govern. Y: Your Roadmap Prioritize owners, timelines, investment, metrics, dependencies, and maturity milestones. The order matters: business before technology. Because CEOs and CFOs don’t fund tool lists. They fund resilience, continuity, client trust, risk reduction, and defensible decisions. And CISOs don’t need more noise. They need a way to explain what matters, what it costs, what risk gets reduced, and what the business is choosing to accept. Cybersecurity becomes a board priority when it is framed as a business program. A program with owners, trade-offs, funding logic, and measurable risk decisions. 💾 Save this for your next cyber risk, budget, or board discussion. 📨 If your cyber program is hard to explain, prioritize, or defend internally, DM me. 📲 Follow Wil Klusovsky for executive-level clarity on cyber risk and business decisions.

Your defensive controls might not be as secure as you think. Over the years, I feel like I've talked to too many Security and IT leaders who were unaware of the gaps in their defensive posture. Or they believed that having multiple security tools in place automatically meant strong defensive capabilities. This "set it and forget it" mentality leads to a false sense of security, overlooking configuration or integration issues. Make time to evaluate your defensive controls—whether you conduct the assessment internally or engage experts who can provide an objective, specialized analysis. A Defensive Controls Assessment delivers a comprehensive "deep dive" into defensive stance, helping to identify gaps that often stem from insufficient or improperly configured security tools. But this isn’t just about finding what’s missing; it’s about empowering your organization to take actionable steps toward a more resilient security framework. Why is this important? ✔️ Proactively uncover vulnerabilities before threat actors do. ✔️ Align your security tools with industry best practices (MITRE ATT&CK, NIST CSF, CIS Critical Security Controls, etc.) ✔️ Save time and money by addressing gaps early. What do you gain? 🔍 A detailed analysis of your current defenses. 🔧 Identification of gaps and misconfigurations. 📈 A clear, actionable roadmap for remediation and hardening. This assessment empowers your organization with the insights needed to strengthen your defenses and reduce risk. When was the last time you evaluated your defensive controls? Make it happen... #CyberSecurity #DefensiveControls #RiskManagement #SecurityAssessment

𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗚𝗮𝗽 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 ?? When starting the Cybersecurity Journey for ICS, choosing the right starting point can make all the difference. Since the ultimate goal is to reduce the Security Risk there may be a propensity to start with Risk Assessment. But, wait let's evaluate: We have two options to start Security Gap Assessment or Risk Assessment. A 𝗚𝗮𝗽 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 evaluates your current security posture against industry standards or best practices. It is less resource-intensive and doesn't require extensive documentation or stakeholder input, making it ideal for organizations with limited resources. It provides a clear baseline and aligns your security posture with recognized standards like IEC 62443, helping identify critical gaps without needing detailed risk information. The steps involved are: ✏ Define Objectives: Set clear goals for what you want to achieve. ✏ Select Frameworks/Standards: Choose relevant standards such as IEC 62443. ✏ Assess Current State: Evaluate your existing controls and processes. Interview of key people. ✏ Identify Gaps: Determine where your current posture falls short of desired standards. ✏ Plan Remediation: Develop a plan to address identified gaps. 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 on the other side evaluates potential risks to your ICS environment, assessing their impact and likelihood. Risk Assessment provides a thorough analysis of potential risks, helping you understand the impact and likelihood of various threats. It helps prioritize security efforts by identifying critical risks that need immediate attention and is essential for developing an effective security strategy, though it typically requires extensive stakeholder input and documentation. The steps involved are: ✏ Identify Assets: Catalog all ICS assets and their importance. ✏ Identify Threats: Determine potential threats to these assets. ✏ Assess Vulnerabilities: Identify weaknesses that could be exploited. ✏ Analyze Impact and Likelihood: Evaluate the potential impact and likelihood of each threat. ✏ Prioritize Risks: Rank risks based on their severity. ✏ Mitigation Plan: Develop strategies to mitigate high-priority risks. 𝙈𝙮 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣: 👉 Start with a Gap Assessment to begin with ICS Security. It’s a less resource-intensive approach that provides a foundational understanding of your current security posture. 👉 Move to a Risk Assessment when you need to prioritize your security efforts and develop a focused strategy. This approach ensures you address the most significant risks first, using detailed insights and comprehensive analysis. #ICSSecurity #Cybersecurity #GapAssessment #RiskAssessment #OTSecurity #ICS #CyberSafety #SecurityJourney