Proud to lead Cytactic 's newly launched CIRM Lab, a dedicated function that keeps our platform and perspective firmly rooted in the high-stakes reality of cyber incidents. Too often, response breaks down not from the attack itself, but from internal silos, unclear authority, and untested coordination across security, legal, comms, and exec teams. The Lab bridges that gap by translating frontline experience into better operational insight, practitioner education, and product decisions that matter when it counts. This commitment reflects why Gartner introduced Cybersecurity Incident Response Management (CIRM) as a distinct category in their 2025 Hype Cycle for Security Operations and why we're honored to be recognized as a sample vendor. Cyber incidents are now an expected condition. Building true readiness means embedding real-world lessons before the alarm sounds.

A strong cyber incident response playbook in 2026 is not a policy document. It’s a practical execution guide designed for the most chaotic moments of an incident. At its core, a modern playbook is built around clear, sequential steps: 1. Trigger & Activation Every playbook starts a specific events that activate it. This removes hesitation and avoids debates about whether an incident is “serious enough” to respond. 2. Incident Definition & Scope - What qualifies as this incident type - What systems, data, or users are in scope This prevents overreaction on one hand — and dangerous under-reaction on the other. 3. Detection & Initial Assessment - How the incident was detected - How severity is classified - What evidence must be preserved immediately This step is critical to avoid destroying forensic data in the rush to “fix” things. 4. Immediate Containment Actions - What to isolate - What not to shut down yet - What actions require authorisation The goal here is impact containment, not premature recovery. 5. Roles, Responsibilities & Decision Points - Who leads - Who supports - Who authorises decisions - When escalation is mandatory This eliminates confusion between IT, Legal, PR, and leadership during high-pressure moments. 6. Communication & Escalation Paths - Internal messaging controls - Executive notifications - Regulatory and customer communication triggers What’s said — and when — can matter as much as the technical response. 7. Legal, Compliance & Reporting Steps Documentation, evidence handling, and notification requirements are embedded directly into the workflow — not left as an afterthought. 8. Post-Incident Review & Update - Lessons-learned checkpoints - Review timelines - Update requirements Because an untested or outdated playbook creates false confidence. Playbooks operationalise strategy. They turn high-level incident response plans into repeatable, testable, auditable action during the most critical hours of an incident. If your team activated a playbook tomorrow, would it tell them exactly what to do — step by step — or would it still leave room for interpretation? #cybersecurity #incidentresponse #cyberresilience #riskmanagement #infosec #ciso #businesscontinuity #cyberpreparedness #digitalrisk #securityleadership

I keep hearing the same line from IT and security teams: “We have vulnerability reports… but things don’t actually get closed.” In environments with 300+ endpoints, often M365-heavy, vulnerability management tends to break down in three predictable areas: - The backlog keeps growing, with new findings outpacing closed findings. - Teams report “we patched it,” but there’s no verification through re-scans or evidence. - Leadership receives PDFs instead of clarity, lacking measurable trends (opened vs. closed, days open). This raises an uncomfortable question: Can you run a closure-first vulnerability program without adding RMM complexity? My take: Yes — but only under the right conditions. That’s why we developed a minimalist approach (LeanSecure 300): - Risk-based prioritization and backlog management - OS and third-party patch remediation, including maintenance windows and change/rollback discipline - Verification of closure via re-scan, not just “patch applied” - Monthly Executive Scorecard (0–100) showing trends: opened vs. closed, days open - Evidence-ready reporting for audits and customer security questionnaires I’m curious and would love to discuss in the comments: - What’s your average days open for critical findings? - What’s the biggest blocker between “patched” and “provably closed”? - In your view, when is an RMM-free model sustainable — and when is it not? If helpful, I can share a Baseline Scorecard example via DM. #CyberSecurity #VulnerabilityManagement #PatchManagement #M365 #RiskManagement #MSP #GRC #SecurityOperations #ITOperations

Most cyber incidents don’t fail because technology breaks. They fail because decision-making breaks. Security teams execute. Containment progresses. Forensics run. Then response slows, not because tools stop working, but because authority, obligations, and ownership collide under executive, legal, and regulatory pressure. That’s the gap separating reactive responders from truly mature enterprises. Incident response at scale is no longer just a security workflow problem. It’s a governance and coordination problem, spanning security, legal, communications, risk, and executive leadership simultaneously (Marsh McLennan). The organizations getting this right have clarity on who decides what, when, and with which information, before the incident occurs. That clarity keeps response from stalling when regulators call, the board demands updates, or disclosure timelines tighten (Marsh). This is why Cyber Incident Response Management (CIRM) is emerging as a distinct discipline. A mature CIRM approach provides shared context, governed decision paths, and real-time alignment across functions, so leaders act decisively instead of debating process mid-incident (Forbes). Many legacy IR and SOAR tools execute tasks well, but remain static. They automate steps, yet offer little help when conditions change, stakeholders multiply, or decisions must be defensible months later in front of regulators and the board. This is the gap we built Cytactic to close. #Cytactic turns incident response into a coordinated command function, not a scramble of tools, roles, and assumptions. It codifies roles, decision authority, playbooks, and communications into a single, unified command surface that works before, during, and after a breach. The impact is measurable. Organizations with mature, coordinated incident response planning contain incidents faster and materially reduce regulatory and reputational fallout, not just because they move quicker, but because they move together (Industrial Cyber). The best teams don’t just prepare for the breach. They prepare for the decisions the breach will force. That’s what maturity looks like. What does mature incident response governance look like in your organization? #CyberSecurity #IncidentResponse #CIRM #Governance #RiskManagement #CyberResilience #BoardReady #EnterpriseSecurity #Leadership #ThoughtLeadership

The Modern Vulnerability Management Lifecycle: Beyond Just Patching 🛡️ Stop treating vulnerability management as a quarterly scan-and-patch chore. 🚨 That reactive model is dead. Modern cyber threats demand a continuous, integrated lifecycle. Here’s the strategic framework every CISO and security leader is building towards, visualized in one cohesive flow: This isn't just a tool. It's an operational engine powered by: 🔄 Continuous Asset Discovery & Perimeter Monitoring You can't protect what you don't know. Real-time visibility is non-negotiable. ⚔️ Network & Web Application Threat Protection Layered defenses at the edge and within applications, powered by a global delivery infrastructure. 📊 Unified Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) Automate compliance reporting and map controls directly to your risk posture. 📈 Centralized Command via Dashboards, Reports, & Workflows Integrate everything. Streamline response. Make data-driven decisions with customizable reporting. The goal? To unify Security, Asset Management, and Compliance into a single, seamless workflow—proactively managing risk, not just reacting to alerts. 💡 Pro-Tip: The most mature programs use this lifecycle to shift from a "vulnerability score" to a "business risk" conversation with the board. Agree? Is your program operating on a reactive patch cycle or a continuous lifecycle? Like this if the framework resonates. Share to spread the strategic view with your network. Comment below: Which pillar is the weakest link in most organizations you see? 👇 #VulnerabilityManagement #CyberSecurity #GRC #RiskManagement #InfoSec #CISO #SecurityOperations #ThreatIntelligence #Compliance #CyberRisk #SecurityFramework #AssetManagement #DevSecOps #CloudSecurity

An incident response plan is the roadmap 🗺️ that turns your incident response capability—team, strategies, tools—into consistent action when a cybersecurity incident happens 🚨. It tells everyone what to do ✅, who’s responsible 👥, how you’ll measure success 📊, and how you’ll improve after the fact 🔁. Key elements to include: 🔑 ✅ management approval and commitment 🎯 purpose, objectives, and scope 🛡️ a clear definition of a cybersecurity incident 👥 roles and responsibilities (incident response team, relevant management) ⚠️ severity ratings and associated priorities 📊 performance metrics for your response capability 🗺️ a roadmap for continuous improvement 📋 detailed incident response procedures 📝 handling checklists for common incident types 📣 incident reporting requirements 📑 required reporting and contact forms If you work toward CMMC level 2 or higher, an incident response capability is mandatory 🔒: detect and respond to incidents 🔍➡️🛡️, analyze and report to relevant parties (like the DoD) 📝➡️🇺🇸, test your processes 🧪, and have plans for common incidents 📦. 🤝 Need a hand aligning your plan with CMMC or want a review? Reach out at info@lakeridge.io ✉️ 🛡️ Is your incident response plan ready for real incidents—and for CMMC requirements? Read more: https://lnkd.in/e9WK3qeX 🔗

The ROI problem in Attack Surface Management isn’t that teams aren’t working hard — it’s that most programs measure noise (asset counts, alerts) instead of outcomes (reduced exposure & faster ownership). 💡 If your ASM dashboards only show more assets and more alerts, you’re providing visibility — not risk reduction. The real value comes when you can show risky assets are owned faster, exposures shrink over time, and danger zones are resolved, not just observed. 📌 Read why outcome-oriented metrics matter more than inventory growth: 🔗 https://lnkd.in/gq7vYR64 #Cybersecurity #AttackSurfaceManagement #RiskReduction #SecurityOps #Infosec #MetricsThatMatter

Worked on SOC-focused threat analysis and incident management, using VirusTotal to investigate files, URLs, and indicators of compromise (IOCs). I practiced validating alerts by analyzing file hashes, suspicious URLs, and detection tags in VirusTotal, while paying attention to historical scan results that may change over time. This helped distinguish real threats from false positives during alert triage. The session also covered incident management fundamentals — understanding the difference between events, alerts, and incidents, identifying true vs false positives, and managing cases through an Incident Management System (IMS). I reviewed how alerts are named, categorized, documented, and handled using structured playbooks to ensure consistent and efficient response. This reinforced how SOC analysts combine threat intelligence, log analysis, and incident workflows to make accurate decisions and close alerts effectively. #SOC #VirusTotal #IncidentManagement #BlueTeam #CyberSecurity #ThreatIntelligence #SIEM #SOAR #LetsDefend #CICSA

Acronym of the Day... CTEM! Organizations that adopt a CTEM approach experience several benefits. These include: Reduced risk exposure: Using continuous monitoring to identify threats before they can impact business operations helps reduce risk exposure.  Improved prioritization: CTEM helps organizations understand the severity of each threat so they can determine which ones require urgent attention and resources. Proactive security posture: The proactive approach of CTEM is seen particularly in the scoping and discovery steps, which work continuously to address emerging threats. Stronger incident response: The simulated attacks and automated remediation steps defined during the validation phase verify the effectiveness of response plans and their triggers, empowering teams to respond faster to incidents.

The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) --- Framework Structure NIST CSF is built on three core components: Framework Core – Defines what cybersecurity outcomes should be achieved through core functions. Implementation Tiers – Measure how well cybersecurity risk management practices are institutionalized. Profiles – Enable organizations to assess the current state, define a target state, and perform gap analysis. Five Core Functions- Identify – Establishes organizational understanding of assets, business context, governance, and risks to prioritize cybersecurity efforts. Protect – Implements safeguards such as access controls, awareness training, data protection, and secure processes. Detect – Enables timely identification of cybersecurity events through monitoring, anomaly detection, and defined detection processes. Respond – Focuses on containment, communication, analysis, and coordinated incident response. Recover – Supports resilience through recovery planning, service restoration, and continuous improvement. Implementation Tiers- Tier 1 (Partial) – Ad-hoc and reactive Tier 2 (Risk-Informed) – Policies exist but are not consistently applied Tier 3 (Repeatable) – Defined and consistently implemented Tier 4 (Adaptive) – Continuously improving and threat-driven Why Organizations Use NIST CSF- Enhances cybersecurity governance and risk visibility Improves audit readiness and regulatory alignment Enables measurable cybersecurity maturity Bridges technical security controls with business objectives