Is the Cloud Migration Mindset Snafu Reoccurring with Untethered AI Adoption?
Organizations once rushed to the cloud in search of transformation, innovation, reduced cost of ownership, and a competitive advantage. In that haste, they overlooked a hard truth: threat actors thrive in environments filled with misconfigurations and weak security practices. Many enterprises quickly embraced cloud capabilities, but they failed to bring cybersecurity along with them. Most organizations never thoroughly answered the foundational question of cloud-era security: Where does our critical data reside? Even now, many enterprises lack a complete inventory of sensitive data locations or data flows. That visibility gap did not disappear; it simply shifted. And now, with the rise of GenAI, that same unknown data is being fed into tools outside organizational control. The result was years of avoidable breaches, exposed buckets, overly permissive identities, and reactive security strategies that continue to ripple across the industry today. We are witnessing the same pattern with Generative AI and LLMs. The rapid introduction of GenAI and large language models has created unprecedented opportunities, rapid innovation, resource optimization, improved productivity, and enhanced decision quality. Yet one issue persists: Where are the guardrails? For most organizations, they are either immature or nonexistent. AI Governance should have been implemented from day one, with oversight committees established early to set boundaries, evaluate risks, and shape responsible adoption. To bridge this gap, organizations should define clear roles, responsibilities, and processes for these committees to ensure continuous oversight and accountability. This proactive approach helps organizations embed governance into their AI strategies from the outset, reducing risks and aligning with best practices. This is not speculation. Recent research shows that employees are adopting Generative AI at extraordinary rates, often without informing IT or leadership. A supporting perspective can be found in this post by Ian Paul of CheckPoint, ‘How CIOs Can Turn AI Visibility into Strategy.’ The implications are significant. Hidden or “shadow” AI usage creates an environment in which innovation occurs organically, but without governance, oversight, or security. Yet that same usage data, when finally observed, can become an invaluable blueprint for formulating an informed AI strategy. Organizations can learn exactly which tools employees find valuable and which workflows are ripe for meaningful AI-driven efficiency gains. But visibility is the prerequisite for strategy. Security leaders need to understand which AI services are being accessed, what types of prompts are being submitted, how much sensitive content is being shared, and where risky behavior is occurring. Implementing monitoring tools such as AI activity dashboards, data flow analysis, and real-time alerting can provide the necessary visibility. These methods enable organizations to identify unauthorized AI usage, assess data exposure, and ensure compliance with security policies, thereby supporting a more informed and secure AI environment. The gap between organizational intent and real-world usage shows why AI Governance must be a core function, giving leaders confidence in responsible AI management. The lesson is clear. Building visibility, governance, and accountability into AI adoption helps organizations feel prepared and secure against repeating past mistakes. Organizations do not need to slow down innovation. They need to ensure that innovation does not outpace cybersecurity’s ability to support it safely.
Governance of AI and Other Emerging Technologies: Balancing Innovation and Responsibility
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies, such as blockchain, IoT, quantum computing, and biotechnology, are not just reshaping industries and societies but also offering a beacon of hope. These innovations bring immense potential to solve complex problems, drive efficiency, and enhance the quality of life. However, they also raise critical questions about ethics, privacy, security, and accountability. The challenge lies in ensuring that these technologies are developed and deployed responsibly, balancing innovation with societal values and public trust. This is where governance frameworks come into play, providing guidelines, policies, and regulations to manage the development and use of these technologies. In this blog, we’ll explore the importance of governance for AI and other emerging technologies, the challenges it addresses, and strategies for building robust governance frameworks to foster responsible innovation. Why Governance of Emerging Technologies Matters 1. Ethical Considerations Emerging technologies, particularly AI, often raise significant ethical implications. Without robust governance, technologies can lead to unintended consequences such as bias in AI systems, misuse of data, or decisions that harm vulnerable populations. Governance ensures that ethical principles such as fairness, transparency, and accountability are upheld. 2. Mitigating Risks Emerging technologies introduce new risks, including security vulnerabilities, privacy violations, and the potential for misuse. However, governance frameworks play a crucial role in mitigating these risks by establishing standards and best practices for secure development and deployment, thereby providing a sense of reassurance. 3. Building Trust Public trust is essential for the widespread adoption of emerging technologies. Governance frameworks create transparency, demonstrating that developers and organizations prioritize user safety, privacy, and ethical behavior. 4. Ensuring Compliance and Regulation Many sectors, such as healthcare, finance, and defense, are heavily regulated. Governance frameworks ensure that emerging technologies comply with industry-specific regulations and legal requirements, minimizing the risk of fines and legal challenges. 5. Supporting Sustainable Innovation By providing guidelines and accountability mechanisms, governance frameworks help ensure that emerging technologies contribute to long-term societal and economic goals without causing harm or exacerbating inequality. Key Challenges in Governing Emerging Technologies 1. Rapid Pace of Innovation Emerging technologies evolve faster than regulatory frameworks can keep up. Policymakers often struggle to create rules that are flexible enough to accommodate future advancements while addressing present risks. 2. Global Scope Technologies like AI and blockchain operate across borders, raising questions about jurisdiction and enforcement. Coordinating governance efforts on a global scale is a significant challenge. 3. Ethical Ambiguity What is considered ethical or acceptable varies across cultures, industries, and stakeholder groups. Defining universal ethical standards for technologies like AI is complex and requires nuanced debate. 4. Balancing Regulation and Innovation Over-regulation can stifle innovation, while under-regulation leaves room for misuse. Striking the right balance between fostering innovation and ensuring safety is a delicate task. 5. Accountability and Liability Determining responsibility when emerging technologies fail or cause harm can be difficult, especially in cases involving autonomous systems or complex algorithms. Principles for Governing AI and Emerging Technologies Effective governance frameworks should be guided by principles that prioritize ethics, security, and inclusivity. Here are some key principles: 1. Transparency 2. Fairness and Inclusivity 3. Accountability 4. Security and Privacy 5. Adaptability Strategies for Building Governance Frameworks 1. Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration 2. Develop Ethical Guidelines 3. Implement Regulatory Sandboxes 4. Invest in Education and Awareness 5. Use Standards and Certifications 6. Leverage Technology for Governance Examples of Governance in Action 1. GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) 2. OECD AI Principles 3. AI Governance in Healthcare The Future of Governance for Emerging Technologies As emerging technologies continue to evolve, governance frameworks must adapt to address new challenges. Here are some trends to watch: The future of governance will require a delicate balance between fostering innovation, protecting public interests, and ensuring equitable access to technology. Conclusion The governance of AI and other emerging technologies is critical to unlocking their full potential while minimizing risks. By establishing robust frameworks that prioritize ethics, security, and inclusivity, we can ensure that these technologies drive positive change for society as a whole. The task ahead is complex, but with collaboration, transparency, and a commitment to responsible innovation, we can navigate the challenges of the digital age and create a future where technology works for everyone. Are you ready to embrace governance as a cornerstone of your approach to emerging technologies? AccessIT can help you balance innovation and responsibility by implementing Governance of AI and Other Emerging Technologies into your processes. Let’s build a safer, more ethical, and sustainable future together.
The Evolution of Cyber Risks in M&A, Rebalancing Approaches and Countermeasures in a Growing Threat Landscape
53% of surveyed organizations report they have encountered a critical cybersecurity issue or incident during an M&A that put the deal into jeopardy, according to ForeScout (“The Role of Cybersecurity in M&A Diligence“). As such, visibility into key risks and determining actionable priorities are critical components of the Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) lifecycle. Although the role of cybersecurity in M&A, especially during ‘due diligence’ is nothing new to the industry, it is too often seen as a check-box activity, leaving many issues underestimated, unidentified, or even unseen. Today, threat actors are increasingly targeting M&A announcements themselves, or indicators of a potential transaction – to extract leverage – using leaked deal data, phishing schemes, and ransomware to exploit periods of organizational transition and distraction. Now more than ever, organizations must proactively evolve their cybersecurity strategies, rebalancing due-diligence approaches and strengthening countermeasures to keep pace with a rapidly growing and increasingly sophisticated threat landscape. The Pace of Chance As the risk and threat landscape has significantly evolved in recent times, approaches to gain risk visibility and assess business level impacts for M&A has fallen behind. These must steadily evolve to position success and manage risk liabilities that are increasing in impact magnitude, with impacts spanning beyond cyber breaches into large scale reputational damage, costly legal affairs, and impacts to market capitalization for public companies as highlighted examples. Some notable and issues warranting heightened concern include: Change Influencers At a macro scale – heightened geopolitical tensions and geostrategic influences are placing certain industries and demographics at increased risk. This is often the realm of nation state actors or their ‘professional’ affiliates. Impacted organizations may include: Key Areas to Consider Enhancing: 1. Data Ecosystem Leakage and Exfiltration: Shadow IT, and Assets in an ‘under managed’ and/or ‘under configured’ state: Data Boundaries and Operational Processes and Behaviors: 2. Attack Surface and Reconnaissance 3. Legacy Debt Accumulation 4. Technology Licensing Hangovers 5. The Role of The Security Tech Stack In conclusion: In today’s rapidly evolving threat landscape, cybersecurity is no longer optional in M&A—it’s mission-critical. Organizations must move beyond checkbox due diligence, proactively identifying and addressing risks before they can jeopardize a deal. Only by rebalancing strategies and strengthening defenses can companies protect deal value and emerge more resilient in an era defined by digital risk. In closing:
NIST AI RMF vs ISO/IEC 42001
Bridging AI Governance and Risk Management As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integral to business operations, regulators and standards bodies are establishing frameworks to promote trustworthy, transparent, and responsible AI. Three of the most influential are the NIST AI Risk Management Framework 100-1 (AI RMF 1.0), with companion resource 600-1 for Generative AI, and the ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Artificial Intelligence Management System Standard. While both aim to foster responsible AI, they differ in scope, structure, and implementation approach. Understanding these similarities and differences helps organizations integrate both frameworks into a unified, defensible AI governance strategy. Purpose and Intent NIST AI RMF (AI 100-1), released by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology in January 2023, provides a voluntary framework to help organizations identify, manage, and mitigate AI risks throughout the AI lifecycle. It focuses on promoting trustworthiness, ensuring AI systems are valid, reliable, safe, secure, fair, and accountable. ISO/IEC 42001:2023, by contrast, is a certifiable management system standard, similar in structure to ISO/IEC 27001 for information security. It defines requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an AI Management System (AIMS), embedding AI governance directly into organizational structures and operations. In short: Structural Approach Framework Core Structure Purpose NIST AI RMF 4 Functions: Govern, Map, Measure, Manage Guides organizations through the lifecycle of identifying and mitigating AI risks ISO/IEC 42001 Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) management cycle Establishes an operational, auditable AI governance system aligned with other ISO standards Both utilize risk-based thinking; however, NIST’s approach is functional and descriptive, whereas ISO’s is prescriptive and certifiable. Common Themes and Overlaps Despite structural differences, both frameworks share strong conceptual alignment and reinforce each other in practice. 1. Risk-Based Approach Both emphasize risk assessment, treatment, and monitoring. 2. Lifecycle Integration Both integrate risk management across the AI lifecycle, from data design and model training to deployment and ongoing monitoring.NIST defines AI actors and their roles, while ISO formalizes these within organizational leadership, planning, and accountability structures. 3. Trustworthiness and Ethical Principles Both promote trustworthy AI, emphasizing accountability, transparency, fairness, safety, and privacy.NIST defines seven core characteristics of trustworthy AI. ISO requires policies and controls that embed these values in corporate governance. 4. Continuous Improvement NIST encourages regular reviews and updates to adapt to the evolution of AI.ISO mandates continual improvement of the AI management system as a formal clause requirement. Key Differences Dimension NIST AI RMF ISO/IEC 42001 Nature Voluntary guidance Certifiable management system Focus AI risk identification and mitigation Organizational governance and control over AI Intended Users AI developers, deployers, policymakers Organizations seeking formal certification Outcome Improved AI trustworthiness and transparency Compliance evidence, accountability, and certification readiness Structure 4 Functions (Govern, Map, Measure, Manage) 10 Clauses (Context, Leadership, Planning, Operation, etc.) Documentation Requirement Recommended Mandatory (policies, risk register, impact assessments, controls) External Alignment OECD, ISO 31000, ISO/IEC 22989 ISO 27001, 9001, 27701, 23894 Auditability Informal self-assessment Third-party certification possible Consideration for Generative AI (NIST AI 600-1) In August 2024, NIST introduced NIST AI 600-1, “Secure Development Practices for Generative AI.” This companion document expands on the AI RMF principles to address the unique risks associated with generative AI systems. While NIST AI RMF 100-1 establishes a broad foundation for risk management across all types of AI, NIST AI 600-1 focuses specifically on model development, data security, and content integrity for generative models, such as large language models (LLMs), image generators, and other foundational models. Key aspects of NIST AI 600-1 include: For organizations already aligned with ISO/IEC 42001, incorporating NIST AI 600-1 controls can strengthen compliance by demonstrating due diligence over the secure development and responsible deployment of generative AI, especially in sectors facing increased regulatory scrutiny, such as finance, healthcare, and education. Practical Integration Strategy For organizations already certified under ISO/IEC management systems (such as 27001 or 9001), ISO/IEC 42001 provides a natural extension for AI governance. For organizations earlier in their AI maturity journey, NIST AI RMF serves as an accessible entry point to build foundational risk management processes before scaling toward certification. A combined approach is often most effective: Example of Complementary Alignment NIST AI RMF Function ISO/IEC 42001 Equivalent Common Outcome Govern Clauses 4–5 (Context, Leadership, Policy) Establishes AI governance culture and accountability Map Clauses 6–7 (Planning, Support) Identifies AI risks, opportunities, and required controls Measure Clause 9 (Performance Evaluation) Audits and monitors AI performance and risk metrics Manage Clauses 8 & 10 (Operation, Improvement) Implements and continuously enhances AI management practices AI Governance Through Policy Creation, Dissemination and Enforcement AI governance, achieved through policy creation, dissemination, and enforcement, is essential for ensuring that artificial intelligence is developed, deployed, and managed responsibly. Policies establish clear boundaries and expectations around how AI systems should operate, addressing critical aspects such as data privacy, bias mitigation, model transparency, and accountability. Without formalized governance policies, organizations risk deploying AI in ways that amplify bias, expose sensitive data, or create ethical and regulatory liabilities. By codifying principles of fairness, explainability, and human oversight into enforceable frameworks, enterprises can ensure that their AI systems align with their organizational values, legal requirements, and risk tolerance levels. Enforcement of these policies is equally critical, as governance without implementation is merely aspirational. Active monitoring, auditing, and continuous evaluation of AI systems are necessary to ensure compliance with established policies and to detect deviations early. Enforcement mechanisms, such as automated controls, periodic reviews, and internal AI ethics committees, translate policy intent into operational reality. This not only reduces risks but also builds trust among stakeholders, customers, and regulators. Effective AI governance through strong policy enforcement ultimately strengthens organizational resilience, enabling innovation with confidence while maintaining ethical integrity and regulatory compliance. Conclusion The evolution of AI governance now encompasses three complementary standards: NIST AI RMF (100-1), ISO/IEC 42001:2023, and NIST AI 600-1, each addressing a distinct yet interconnected layer of responsibility. Together, these frameworks form a comprehensive AI governance ecosystem, one that balances innovation with accountability and automation with human oversight. By integrating all three, organizations can demonstrate not only compliance and control, but also confidence and credibility in how
Families at Risk: Digital Threats to C-Suite Executives Don’t Stop at the Boardroom
Strategy and Transformation Practice 72% of U.S. Senior Executives were targeted by cyberattacks between February 2023 and August 2024, according to a 2024 report by GetApp. While the success and impact of these attacks vary, one thing is clear: businesses are becoming harder targets. Through stronger employee awareness, governance, and tooling, attackers are being forced to evolve. As a result, they’re turning to executives’ personal lives, and families, as potential entry points. This includes leveraging personal data about spouses and children from data brokers and social media sites. Cybercriminals are launching SIM-swaps, phishing campaigns, and emotional extortion tactics designed to bypass corporate security through personal channels. In this new threat landscape, protecting executive leadership means protecting their households. Cybersecurity at the top must now extend from the boardroom into the home. In a troubling example of this, attackers turned to an executive’s child to gain access they could not get directly. While this threat is pervasive amongst the general population, it’s particularly salient amongst high profile individuals and their families. “Doxing”, as it’s commonly referred, is the malicious act of publicly revealing someone’s private information without their consent. This often involves the disclosure and sale of personally identifiable information (PII) on the dark web, where criminals buy and use it for identity theft, fraud, and targeted attacks. Where is this information found? Unfortunately, it can be found easily in a number of places. It could include public sources like LinkedIn, company bios, press releases, social media, etc. It can be found on Data broker sites that aggregate public personal information, including home address. Potentially found in “breach dumps” that include Email/password leaks and Dark web markets or public breach repositories. The information can be used in a number of attacks. One such attack is “SIM-swapping”, where they hijack a child’s phone number and impersonate them in emotionally charged calls to pressure the executive into approving actions like Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) bypass. In some cases, attackers extort an executive’s child—threatening to expose personal information—to coerce them into installing malware, compromising the family’s home network. Additionally, threat actors use brokered family data to impersonate trusted loved ones via email or phone, executing pretexting attacks designed to trick executives into disclosing credentials or installing malware. How can you protect yourself, your family, and your business? SIM-swapping, spoofing, and phishing attacks often start with a child or spouse’s compromised phone or email. Malware installed on a family member’s device can pivot into executive work networks or data. Family members are often the weakest link in security, especially children. Attackers often buy executive and family details from data brokers to impersonate or threaten. As attackers increasingly target executives through their families, the protection of personal and household security is critical to reducing risks for the entire business. Securing family data, strengthening account protections, and improving cyber hygiene help close vulnerable entry points that could compromise corporate systems. AccessIT Group offers Digital Executive Protection, providing thorough OSINT reviews to identify exposed personal information and tailored digital security training for executives. These training courses include take-home materials for families, empowering them to maintain strong defenses and safeguard both personal and business assets.
Inside the 2025 PCI SSC North America Community Meeting: Insights, Myths, and Key Takeaways
This week, the payments security community gathered in Fort Worth, Texas, for the highly anticipated 2025 PCI SSC North America Community Meeting. Held from September 16–18, the event brought together Council staff, industry experts, and stakeholders from across North America to discuss the latest in payment card security, technical updates, and collaborative opportunities. Setting the Stage: Why the PCI Community Meeting Matters Every year, the PCI SSC North America Community Meeting is more than just a conference; it’s a crucial gathering spot that wouldn’t be the same without the varied perspectives from across the industry, including yours. This event sparks innovation, deepens relationships, and guarantees that the standards safeguarding cardholder data stay strong and up-to-date in a rapidly changing environment. Key Themes and Highlights 1. Technical and Security Updates A central focus of this year’s meeting was on the latest technical and security developments in the payments ecosystem. Council staff and industry leaders shared insights on evolving threats, compliance requirements, and best practices for securing payment data. Attendees learned about upcoming changes to PCI standards and how these will impact merchants, service providers, and solution vendors. 2. Engaging Sessions and Expert Speakers The agenda featured a robust lineup of sessions led by renowned speakers and subject matter experts. Topics ranged from practical guidance on implementing PCI DSS v4.0 to deep dives into emerging technologies such as tokenization, cloud security, and AI-driven fraud prevention. Panel discussions and interactive workshops encouraged lively debate and knowledge sharing among participants. 3. Community Collaboration Collaboration remains a pledge of the PCI Community Meeting. This year’s event emphasized the importance of active participation within the PCI ecosystem. Attendees were encouraged to join Special Interest Groups (SIGs), contribute to standards development, and network with peers facing similar challenges. 4. Looking Ahead: A Global Perspective While the focus was on North America, the meeting also previewed upcoming PCI SSC events in Europe and Asia-Pacific, highlighting the global nature of payment security challenges and the need for international cooperation. My Presentation: Busting PCI Myths A personal highlight this year came unexpectedly when I was asked at the last minute to fill in for a tech talk slot. I presented “Busting PCI Myths: Practical Truths for Real Security,” a topic I’m passionate about after nearly two decades as a QSA and PCI advisor. During my talk, I addressed some of the most persistent misconceptions that continue to circulate in the industry: The key takeaway? Don’t let PCI myths lull you into a false sense of security. Real protection comes from understanding your true responsibilities and building strong, layered defenses. Ongoing Challenges: Requirements 6.4.3 and 11.6.1 Just like last year, there was significant discussion and some confusion around PCI DSS requirements 6.4.3 and 11.6.1. These requirements introduce critical mandates for monitoring and tamper detection, even for merchants completing the simplest SAQ-A. Many attendees were seeking practical guidance on how to implement these controls effectively, especially in cloud environments and where third-party service providers are involved. Final Thoughts The 2025 PCI SSC North America Community Meeting reaffirmed its status as the premier forum for shaping the future of payment security. Whether you’re a seasoned QSA or new to PCI, the event is a reminder that compliance is a journey, not a checkbox. If you missed it, I highly recommend checking out the PCI SSC website for session recordings and resources. Let’s continue to bust myths, share knowledge, and work together to build a stronger, more secure payments ecosystem. Did you attend the meeting or have thoughts on some of the new requirements? Share your experiences in the comments below!
Incident Response Planning Can’t Wait – Your Best Defense is Preparedness
In the modern cyber threat landscape, incidents are not hypothetical; they are inevitable. The question is not if your organization will experience a security incident, but when and how prepared you will be to respond. The IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 reinforces this reality. While the global average cost of a breach declined for the first time in five years to USD $4.44 million, the U.S. average reached a record USD $10.22 million, driven by higher regulatory penalties and rising detection costs. IBM’s analysis shows that organizations able to identify and contain breaches more quickly, often through tested incident response processes, AI-driven security tools, and automation, experience significantly lower overall breach costs. The value of a formal incident response capability is also reinforced by NIST Special Publication 800-61 Revision 3, which positions incident response as a core element of enterprise risk management and an integral function within the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The guidance emphasizes that an effective IR program is not limited to technical containment; it must include governance, clearly defined roles, communications planning, and post-incident learning. According to NIST, a well-implemented IR process minimizes data loss, reduces service downtime, ensures regulatory obligations are met, and strengthens resilience against future attacks. Revision 3 also stresses continuous improvement through testing, exercises, and integration of lessons learned, turning incident response from a reactive function into a proactive capability that measurably reduces both operational and financial impact. Despite this clear evidence, many organizations delay developing an Incident Response Plan (IRP) until they believe their cybersecurity program is “mature enough.” This delay is a costly gamble. Cyber incidents occur at every level of maturity, often exploiting gaps in early-stage programs, and without an IRP, even a minor incident can escalate into a major crisis. Why Waiting Is a Risk Postponing IR planning creates two significant risks: For small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs), the stakes are even higher. Studies show that 60% of small businesses shut down within six months of a cyberattack, and nearly 40% suffer critical data loss. Recovery is often slow, with many requiring 24 hours or more just to restore basic operations, and that delay can significantly magnify both financial damage and reputational harm. The impact doesn’t end with the initial disruption: 2025 data from ElectroIQ found that 29% of SMBs lose customers permanently after a breach, proving that even incidents that appear manageable at first can quickly escalate into business-ending events. The Role of an Incident Response Plan An IRP is far more than a technical checklist; it is an operational playbook for coordinated crisis management. A strong plan enables the organization to respond decisively under pressure, limit damage, and return to normal operations as quickly as possible. An effective Incident Response Plan (IRP): The IRP serves as a catalyst for maturity. Even if your organization lacks sophisticated detection tools, the plan ensures that when an incident occurs, your response is structured, business-focused, and uniform. Key Elements Backed by Industry Research Drawing on insights from IBM, Verizon DBIR, and SANS, the most effective IRPs incorporate the following elements: 1. Preparation Preparation is the foundation of incident response. It involves building the team, defining processes, and ensuring everyone knows their role before an incident happens. 2. Detection and Analysis The ability to detect an incident early and assess its severity determines how quickly you can contain it. 3. Containment, Eradication, and Recovery Once an incident is confirmed, the focus shifts to limiting damage, removing the threat, and restoring operations. 4. Post-Incident Improvement The post-incident phase is often overlooked, yet it is where significant improvements can be made. This is the time when lessons can be learned and applied to prevent future incidents. Why You Can Start Now, Regardless of Maturity You don’t need a mature SOC, advanced tools, or a large budget to benefit from an Incident Response Program. Even a simple plan, clear roles, communication procedures, and prioritized containment steps, reduces chaos and speeds decisions during a crisis. Starting now allows you to improve over time, building maturity through practice and lessons learned, rather than waiting for a “perfect” state that may never come. A Practical Path Forward For organizations without an IRP, the most effective way to begin is with a phased approach: Conclusion Cybersecurity incidents are inevitable, but chaos is optional. A well-developed, regularly tested Incident Response Plan transforms uncertainty into coordinated action, minimizing operational disruption and financial loss. How AccessIT Group Can HelpAccessIT Group partners with organizations at every stage of cybersecurity maturity to design, implement, and refine effective Incident Response Programs. Our team of experienced security professionals combines proven frameworks with practical, business-focused strategies to build response plans that are actionable, scalable, and tailored to your unique risk profile. We provide hands-on guidance for defining roles, establishing communication protocols, and developing incident-specific playbooks, as well as facilitating tabletop exercises to validate readiness. Whether you’re building your first plan or enhancing an existing program, AccessIT Group ensures you have the processes, training, and expertise to respond swiftly, contain threats, and minimize both operational and financial impact.
What to Expect from vCISO Services – Get What You Pay For
Would you invest in a company whose CEO has no financial background, experience making sound business decisions, or a thorough understanding of business risk? Organizations seeking strategic cybersecurity leadership should understand that not all vCISO services are equal. A true vCISO understands business risk, brings executive- level experience, demonstrates proven leadership, and has a track record of building and maturing cybersecurity programs. In contrast, services provided by someone with only technically focused certifications and minimal experience often lack the depth and breadth required for high-impact, governance-driven, risk-based decision-making. As with most professional services, you get what you pay for, and knowing what to expect from a reputable vCISO services provider can help you make the right investment. NOW is the time to begin developing your cybersecurity program from the top down! 1. Strategic Leadership, Not Just Tactical Support A true vCISO does more than help with policies and procedures. They act as a strategic cybersecurity advisor, aligning security initiatives with your business goals. Expect them to: Warning Sign: If a vCISO service only delivers generic templates or “check-the-box” assessments without a long-term strategy, you’re not getting executive-level value. 2. Risk-Based Approach, Not One-Size-Fits-All Cybersecurity isn’t about buying every tool on the market; it’s about understanding your specific risks and applying the proper controls to mitigate them. A seasoned vCISO should: Warning Sign: If the vCISO’s primary output is a long list of tools to purchase, with little focus on governance or process, you may be paying for a “tool broker,” not a trusted advisor. 3. Expertise and Experience That Match Your Needs Not all vCISOs have the same background. Some specialize in cloud security, while others focus on compliance-heavy industries such as healthcare or finance. When evaluating a service, look for: Warning Sign: Beware of low-cost providers that assign junior consultants or general IT personnel under the “vCISO” title. Actual CISO-level experience comes with years of hands-on leadership in cybersecurity strategy. 4. Measurable Impact and Accountability You should expect your vCISO to provide tangible results, not just recommendations. Deliverables may include: Warning Sign: If progress is hard to measure or if you rarely see actionable reports, the value of the service is questionable. 5. The Price vs. Value Equation Like most services, vCISO offerings range from basic policy templates for a few hundred dollars per month to dedicated executive-level leadership at several thousand dollars per month. The difference often comes down to: While a low-cost provider may seem appealing, underinvestment can leave critical gaps that expose your organization to regulatory fines, costly breaches, reputational damage, or customer departure. A skilled vCISO should help you spend smarter on cybersecurity, often saving money in the long run by avoiding costly incidents or unnecessary tool purchases. Final Thoughts A vCISO isn’t just a “cybersecurity consultant”; they are an extension of your leadership team, driving strategic decision-making and measurable improvements in your security posture. When evaluating providers, remember that you truly get what you pay for. A low-cost option may cover the basics, but a seasoned, reputable vCISO brings the experience, strategy, and risk management expertise that can make the difference between a secure, compliant organization and one that’s vulnerable to a subsequent significant breach. AccessIT Group AccessIT Group fulfills this need by delivering true executive-level vCISO services backed by decades of real-world cybersecurity leadership experience, supported by a team of industry experts. Our vCISOs go beyond policy creation and compliance checklists, providing strategic guidance, measurable risk reduction, and executive/board-level expertise tailored to your organization’s unique needs. With proven success in building and maturing security programs across multiple industries and regulatory environments, AccessIT Group ensures you receive the depth and breadth, with risk and governance focus, and business alignment necessary to protect your organization effectively, because when it comes to cybersecurity leadership, you truly get what you pay for. By: Brett Price – vCISO – C|CISO, CISSP, CISM, CISALead Cybersecurity Consultant
Preparing for the Worst: Building Cyber Resilience with AccessIT Group
Cyberthreats are relentless and constantly changing, clearly showing that every organization must be prepared for the worst. CISOs face high pressure to develop and implement effective incident response (IR) and business continuity (BC) plans that minimize damage and keep critical operations running during crises. This is where AccessIT Group stands out as your trusted partner. With a unique approach that combines deep expertise with customized solutions, AccessIT Group helps cybersecurity professionals build strong, proactive strategies that not only respond to incidents quickly but also ensure business resilience and long-term recovery. In this blog, we’ll explore how AccessIT Group’s distinctive approach supports cybersecurity professionals in preparing for cyberincidents and maintaining business continuity when it matters most. How AccessIT Group Strengthens Incident Response 1. Customized Incident Response Planning AccessIT Group collaborates closely with your security leaders to develop and continually improve incident response plans tailored to your organization’s specific risks and priorities. Our specialists create detailed playbooks for various scenarios, including ransomware, data breaches, and insider threats, ensuring you’re prepared for any situation. 2. Advanced Threat Detection and Monitoring We assist you in deploying and integrating advanced security tools such as SIEM, EDR, and threat intelligence platforms. 3. Security Awareness and Training Programs Human error continues to be a top cause of breaches. AccessIT Group provides thorough security awareness training and simulated phishing campaigns designed to help your workforce identify and report potential threats, enhancing your human firewall. 4. Incident Simulation and Tabletop Exercises We conduct realistic incident simulations and tabletop exercises that evaluate and improve your team’s response skills. These sessions involve cross-functional stakeholders, including legal, communications, and leadership, to strengthen coordination and build confidence during crises. 5. Vendor and Regulatory Coordination AccessIT Group helps you manage relationships with law enforcement, regulators, and third-party vendors, ensuring your incident response remains compliant and well-organized throughout every phase. How AccessIT Group Enhances Business Continuity 1. Business Impact Analysis and Prioritization Our consultants work with you to perform comprehensive Business Impact Analyses (BIA), pinpointing critical processes and systems and establishing Recovery Time Objectives (RTO) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPO) that align with your business goals. 2. Resilient Infrastructure Solutions AccessIT Group can help you design and implement resilient infrastructure strategies, including automated backup solutions and geographically distributed architectures to reduce risks from localized disruptions. 3. Comprehensive Business Continuity Planning We develop comprehensive, actionable business continuity plans that encompass all key functions and scenarios. Our team also helps regularly test these plans through drills and exercises to ensure preparedness and ongoing improvement. 4. Integrated Incident Response and Continuity Management AccessIT Group helps unify your IR and BC efforts, creating seamless workflows that enable smooth transitions from incident containment to business restoration, minimizing downtime and operational impact. 5. Regulatory Compliance Support We ensure that your business continuity practices comply with industry standards and regulatory requirements, such as ISO 22301 and NIST guidelines, thereby reducing compliance risks and enhancing audit readiness. Why Partner with AccessIT Group? Expertise: Our team has decades of combined experience in cybersecurity, incident response, and business continuity across various industries. Tailored Solutions: We recognize that each organization is unique and provide customized strategies that align with your risk profile and business goals. Proactive Partnership: At AccessIT Group, we believe in staying ahead. We help you anticipate threats and build resilience before they happen. Our proactive approach ensures that your organization remains ready and protected. Comprehensive Support: From initial planning and training, AccessIT Group provides a full suite of services. We support you every step of the way, making sure your organization is fully prepared and resilient against cyberthreats. Trusted Advisor: Our open communication and teamwork make us a dependable extension of your security team. Conclusion Preparing for the worst is no longer optional; it’s crucial. With AccessIT Group supporting you, cybersecurity professionals gain a strong partner in creating and implementing incident response and business continuity plans that safeguard your organization’s assets, reputation, and future. Ready to boost your defenses and ensure operational resilience? Contact AccessIT Group today to learn how we can tailor our expertise and solutions to meet your specific needs. Chad Barr, C|CISO | CISSP | CCSP | CISA | CDPSE | QSA | ASV Director of Governance, Risk & Compliance | Risk Advisory Services
Building a Governance-Driven, Holistic Cybersecurity Program
How a CISO or Virtual CISO Can Align Strategy, Frameworks, and Risk Management The latest SANS & Expel survey underscores a critical point: organizations are adopting tools and frameworks, but many still lack the governance, accountability, and risk-based strategy necessary to mature security operations. This is where a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) or virtual CISO (vCISO) steps in, offering a solution to these gaps by implementing a governance-driven approach grounded in U.S. or internationally recognized frameworks and risk assessment methodologies. 1 | Governance Begins with Leadership Survey respondents cited executive oversight and governance structures as central to SOC maturity. Yet 24% operate without a formal governance program, relying on ad hoc alignment. A CISO or vCISO plays a crucial role in establishing a structured governance model. This model defines roles, aligns cybersecurity to business objectives, and embeds oversight into the organization’s leadership fabric, providing a sense of security and organization. 2 | Integrating Frameworks for Governance and Maturity Framework Adoption & Role Strategic Value NIST CSF 2.0 74% adoption among respondents Risk-based model for continuous improvement CIS Controls v8.1 Widely implemented in practice Prioritized, actionable safeguards for maturing operational defense ISO/IEC 27001:2022 ~30% of respondents using Governance and risk management integration with certifiable compliance A CISO or vCISO utilizes these frameworks in conjunction to establish a comprehensive and measurable governance program, integrating strategy (NIST CSF), implementation (CIS or NIST SP 800-53), and assurance (ISO 27001) into a unified security architecture. 3 | Advancing Risk Assessments with Modern Methodologies The foundation of any governance-driven program is a robust risk assessment process. While 73% of organizations conduct some form of risk assessment, many lack consistency or alignment to a formal methodology. To mature this practice, a CISO or vCISO should guide evaluations using: These approaches enable a unified, cross-domain view of digital and AI risk, providing leadership with a forward-looking view of threats, vulnerabilities, and business impacts. 4 | Operationalizing the SOC with Unified Oversight 48% of organizations now operate hybrid Security Operations Centers (SOCs), and 47% have increased their reliance on managed services. A CISO or vCISO ensures that these disparate SOC elements, internal staff, MSSPs, and tools are aligned under a single governance model. This includes standardized escalation procedures, playbooks, control testing, and reporting structures tied to business objectives. 5 | Translating Metrics into Governance Outcomes While organizations frequently track: The CISO or vCISO elevates this into board-level reporting by introducing: 6 | Closing the Training and Readiness Gap 43% of organizations lack formal training for their IT and security staff, a major barrier to achieving maturity. A CISO or vCISO drives a training strategy aligned with: Additionally, only 61% of organizations conduct regular cyber-readiness exercises, often limited to compliance checklists. These exercises should evolve into executive-led scenarios that test governance, coordination, and risk tolerance thresholds. These scenarios could involve simulated cyberattacks or data breaches, allowing the executive team to test their response plans and assess the organization’s overall readiness. 12-Month Governance Roadmap: Quarterly Tasks Q1: Launch Security Governance Board Q2: Conduct Risk Assessment Q3: Integrate Frameworks Q4: Build Reporting & Response Final Thoughts A governance-driven cybersecurity program, designed and led by a CISO or vCISO, ensures that risk, compliance, operations, and executive decision-making are connected through a common language. As AI and digital transformation accelerate, security programs must evolve to encompass new threat models, regulatory expectations, and business risks. By utilizing or aligning NIST CSF, CIS Controls, ISO 27001, and AI-specific standards, such as NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001, under a single governance structure, the CISO or vCISO delivers not just security but also accountability, resilience, and strategic value. AccessIT Group helps organizations build, align, and optimize governance-driven, holistic cybersecurity programs by leveraging the expertise of our seasoned vCISOs, Lead Consultants, and technical teams. We go beyond technical controls to embed cybersecurity into the organization’s leadership fabric, defining governance structures, aligning strategic frameworks such as NIST CSF 2.0, ISO 27001, and CIS Controls, and implementing risk assessment methodologies, including NIST SP 800-30 and ISO/IEC 27005. Our approach ensures measurable outcomes: from launching formal governance boards and integrating hybrid SOC oversight to developing AI-specific risk programs using NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001. Whether improving metrics, enhancing executive reporting, or driving role-based training, we help organizations evolve cybersecurity from a compliance function into a strategic enabler of trust, resilience, and accountability. By: Brett Price – Lead Cybersecurity Consultant and vCISO – C|CISO, CISSP, CISM, CISA