Breached Attack Simulations: The Next Step in Cyber Defense
In today’s threat landscape, cyberattacks are no longer a matter of if — but when. Traditional security testing methods, like vulnerability scans and penetration tests, are essential, but they often represent only a snapshot in time. Organizations need a more realistic way to evaluate their defenses, and simulating a user account compromise is the most realistic way to achieve that. That’s where Breached Attack Simulations (BAS) come in. What Is a Breached Attack Simulation? A Breached Attack Simulation is a cybersecurity testing process that mimics real-world attack tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). Instead of waiting for a real attacker to exploit your weaknesses, BAS platforms proactively test how your people, processes, and technologies respond to simulated breaches across the entire attack chain. These simulations can include: Key Benefits of Breached Attack Simulations Validation of Security Controls Security tools like firewalls, EDRs, and SIEMs need constant tuning. BAS exercises can help validate whether these tools are configured correctly and effectively detect and block attacks — without waiting for a real breach to find out. Realistic, Adversary-Based Testing BAS exercises leverages real-world attacker behaviors sourced from frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK, ensuring that the simulated attacks mirror the methods used by advanced threat actors. Measurable Risk Reduction Each simulation produces actionable data — showing which attack stages succeed or fail, which alerts are triggered, and where gaps exist. Security teams can help to prioritize remediation based on quantifiable results. Faster Incident Response Running BAS exercises helps SOC analysts practice real-world detection and response workflows. This not only improves response times but also strengthens coordination across teams. A Proactive Approach to Cyber Resilience With threats evolving daily, security can’t be a once-a-year exercise. Breached Attack Simulations bring realistic enhanced testing to cybersecurity programs, turning assumptions into measurable facts. By integrating BAS into your security operations, your organization gains the insight and confidence needed to stay ahead of attackers — before they strike.
Beating the Clock Without Losing Credibility: A CISO’s Guide to Year-End Security Decisions
With only a short window remaining in the year, many CISOs are under direct pressure to deploy remaining security budget before it is lost in the next fiscal cycle. That pressure often comes with increased executive scrutiny, where year-end spend is later evaluated through a straightforward question: what value did this investment deliver, and why is it not fully implemented yet? In this environment, the risk is not spending the budget. The risk is spending it in a way that creates operational friction or unrealistic expectations in the new year. New tools acquired late in the year frequently enter the organization without adequate time for onboarding, integration, or staffing alignment. Even strong technologies can struggle to demonstrate value when introduced without a clear execution path. At the same time, year-end is often the point where initiatives that have already been planned, evaluated, and aligned over the course of the year are ready to move forward. For CISOs, executing on these established decisions can improve cost predictability, support budget efficiency, and provide a clearer contractual footing going into the next fiscal year. In these cases, moving ahead is not reactive spending but completion of deliberate planning. Cloud marketplaces are particularly relevant in this context. When used appropriately, they allow organizations to apply remaining budget in ways that align with existing cloud strategies and procurement models. Marketplace purchases can be executed quickly, integrated directly into current environments, and reduce the perception of introducing new standalone platforms. This often makes them easier to explain and defend to executive stakeholders. The most effective year-end actions typically fall into two areas. The first is completing purchases that teams are already prepared to operationalize, including technologies or expansions that were evaluated earlier and have a defined implementation plan. The second is strengthening the adoption of capabilities already in place, such as enabling advanced features, expanding coverage, or adding services that improve outcomes without increasing architectural complexity. Challenges tend to surface in January when there is a gap between what leadership expects and what teams are realistically able to deliver. Acquiring net new technology late in the year without a clear deployment plan often leads to difficult conversations when progress is slower than anticipated. Avoiding this outcome does not require delaying decisions; it requires maintaining alignment between what is purchased and what can be executed. For CISOs managing year-end budget pressure, the objective is not to spend faster. The objective is to spend in ways that are defensible, operationally sound, and aligned with existing priorities. By executing on established plans, leveraging cloud marketplaces where they fit naturally, and avoiding last-minute additions that lack a clear delivery model, organizations can close out the year responsibly and enter the next fiscal cycle without carrying unnecessary risk.
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:
Holiday Phishing Scams: How to Stay Cyber-Safe This Festive Season
The holiday season is upon us, which is usually a time for giving, connecting, and celebrating — but unfortunately, it’s also prime time for cybercriminals. Every year, phishing attacks spike during the holidays – starting with Black Friday and Cyber Monday – taking advantage of busy shoppers, generous donors, and distracted employees. Whether you’re clicking through online sales or managing year-end finances, knowing how to spot and stop phishing attempts can keep your data — and your holiday spirit — safe. Why Phishing Increases During the Holidays Cybercriminals know people are more likely to let their guard down this time of year. A few reasons phishing thrives during the holidays include: According to cybersecurity reports, phishing email volume can increase by up to 80% during the holiday season. Common Types of Holiday Phishing Scams Here are some of the most frequent scams seen between November and January: How to Protect Yourself and Your Organization The good news: A few smart habits can protect you from most phishing threats. A Secure Season Starts with Awareness The holidays should be a time of joy, not digital danger. By staying alert to phishing tactics and sharing these best practices with your colleagues, friends, and family, you can ensure a safer, stress-free holiday season online. Remember: When something sounds too good to be true — or too urgent to wait — it’s probably a phish.
AI: Protecting end users from themselves.
Every once in a while there is a product or technology that comes out that is a complete game changer not only for organizations, but society as a whole. The advent of AI is not new, but the adoption of large language models has exploded over the past seven years, giving everyday people the ability to understand complex topics and even assist with intricate engineering deployments. When used correctly, these tools can help you achieve your goals with nothing more than words on a screen and iterative prompts. If you equate your organization to a mission then one thing should always be top of mind, “This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.” AI Guardrails Like any tools that are very useful and help you get your job done, there should be safety precautions taken when using these tools. A carpenter is able to do a job faster with an electric saw. Electric saws speed up the job, but need guardrails for safety. LLM’s are no different. LLM’s need guardrails to serve as an additional protective layer, reducing the risk of harmful or misleading outputs. Potential Risks: Data Privacy- Ensure organization privacy requirements are met by protecting against the leak or disclosure of sensitive corporate information, PII (personal identifiable information), and other secrets. Content Moderation- Guarantee that the AI applications being used adhere to your company’s content guardrails, approved usage guidelines, and policies. Align the application’s output with its intended use and block attempts to divulge information that could damage your organization reputation. General risks- Safeguard the applications integrity and performance by preventing misuse, ensuring secure data management, and employing a range of standard tools and proactive measures, such as detecting and blocking insecure code handling or blocking unwanted URL’s in prompts and responses. Guardrails and AITG: If you haven’t adopted the use of AI in your organization or have fear of enabling your workforce to use AI, you’re not alone. AITG works with organizations to help protect, identify and manage risks associated with LLM-based Applications. This old way of blocking URL’s or app-id’s to stop access is just that,old. At AITG, security remains the foundation of our approach, guiding how we secure and manage AI systems. Let us help make your organization and team work more efficiently by enabling them to use AI the right way, securely and responsibly.
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