Category Archives: Emerging Threats

Securing AI / Generative AI Use in the Enterprise: Risks, Gaps & Governance

Posted on by
Reply

Imagine this: a data science team is evaluating a public generative AI API to help with summarization of documents. One engineer—trying to accelerate prototyping—uploads a dataset containing customer PII (names, addresses, payment tokens) without anonymization. The API ingests that data. Later, another user submits a prompt that triggers portions of the PII to be regurgitated in an output. The leakage reaches customers, regulators, and media.

This scenario is not hypothetical. As enterprise adoption of generative AI accelerates, organizations are discovering that the boundary between internal data and external AI systems is porous—and many have no governance guardrails in place.

VendorRiskAI

According to a recent report, ~89% of enterprise generative AI usage is invisible to IT oversight—that is, it bypasses sanctioned channels entirely. Another survey finds that nearly all large firms deploying AI have seen risk‑related losses tied to flawed outputs, compliance failures, or bias.

The time to move from opportunistic pilots toward robust governance and security is now. In this post I map the risk taxonomy, expose gaps, propose controls and governance models, and sketch a maturity roadmap for enterprises.

Risk Taxonomy

Below I classify major threat vectors for AI / generative AI in enterprise settings.

1. Model Poisoning & Adversarial Inputs

  • Training data poisoning: attackers insert malicious or corrupted data into the training set so that the model learns undesirable associations or backdoors.

  • Backdoor / trigger attacks: a model behaves normally unless a specific trigger pattern (e.g. a token or phrase) is present, which causes malicious behavior.

  • Adversarial inputs at inference time: small perturbations or crafted inputs cause misclassification or manipulation of model outputs.

  • Prompt injection / jailbreaking: an end user crafts prompts to override constraints, extract internal context, or escalate privileges.

2. Training Data Leakage

  • Sensitive training data (proprietary IP, PII, trade secrets) may inadvertently be memorized by large models and revealed via probing.

  • Even with fine‑tuning, embeddings or internal layers might leak associations that can be reverse engineered.

  • Leakage can also occur via model updates, snapshots, or transfer learning pipelines.

3. Inference-Time Output Attacks & Leakage

  • Model outputs might infer relationships (e.g. “given X, the missing data is Y”) that were not explicitly in training but learned implicitly.

  • Large models can combine inputs across multiple queries to reconstruct confidential data.

  • Malicious users can sample outputs exhaustively or probe with adversarial prompts to elicit sensitive data.

4. Misuse & “Shadow AI”

  • Shadow AI: employees use external generative tools outside IT visibility (e.g. via personal ChatGPT accounts) and paste internal documents, violating policy and leaking data.

  • Use of unconstrained AI for high-stakes decisions without validation or oversight.

  • Automation of malicious behaviors (fraud, social engineering) via internal AI capabilities.

5. Compliance, Privacy & Governance Risks

  • Violation of data protection regulations (e.g. GDPR, CCPA) via improper handling or cross‑boundary transfer of PII.

  • In regulated industries (healthcare, finance), AI outputs may inadvertently produce disallowed inferences or violate auditability requirements.

  • Lack of explainability or audit trails makes it hard to prove compliance or investigate incidents.

  • Model decisions may reflect bias, unfairness, or discriminatory patterns that trigger regulatory or reputational liabilities.

Gaps in Existing Solutions

  • Traditional security tooling is blind to AI risks: DLP, EDR, firewall rules do not inspect semantic inference or prompt-based leakage.

  • Lack of visibility into model internals: Most deployed models (especially third‑party or foundation models) are black boxes.

  • Sparse standards & best practices: While frameworks exist (NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act, ISO proposals), concrete guidance for securing generative AI in enterprises is immature.

  • Tooling mismatch: Many AI governance tools are nascent and do not integrate smoothly with existing enterprise security stacks.

  • Team silos: Data science, DevOps, and security often operate in silos. Defects emerge at the intersection.

  • Skill and resource gaps: Few organizations have staff experienced in adversarial ML, formal verification, or privacy-preserving AI.

  • Lifecycle mismatch: AI models require continuous retraining, drift detection, versioning—traditional security is static.

Governance & Defensive Strategies

Below are controls, governance practices, and architectural strategies enterprises should consider.

AI Risk Assessment / Classification Framework

  • Inventorize all AI / ML assets (foundation models, fine‑tuned models, inference APIs).

  • Classify models by risk tier (e.g. low / medium / high) based on sensitivity of inputs/outputs, business criticality, and regulatory impact.

  • Map threat models for each asset: e.g. poisoning, leakage, adversarial use.

  • Integrate this with enterprise risk management (ERM) and vendor risk processes.

Secure Development & DevSecOps for Models

  • Embed adversarial testing, fuzzing, red‑teaming in model training pipelines.

  • Use data validation, anomaly detection, outlier filtering before ingesting training data.

  • Employ version control, model lineage, and reproducibility controls.

  • Build a “model sandbox” environment with strict controls before production rollout.

Access Control, Segmentation & Audit Trails

  • Enforce least privilege access for training data, model parameters, hyperparameters.

  • Use role-based access control (RBAC) and attribute-based access (ABAC) for model execution.

  • Maintain full audit logging of prompts, responses, model invocations, and guardrails.

  • Segment model infrastructure from general infrastructure (use private VPCs, zero trust).

Privacy / Sanitization Techniques

  • Use differential privacy to add noise and limit exposure of individual records.

  • Use secure multiparty computation (SMPC) or homomorphic encryption for sensitive computations.

  • Apply data anonymization / tokenization / masking before use.

  • Use output filtering / content policies to supersede model outputs that might leak or violate policy.

Monitoring, Anomaly Detection & Runtime Guardrails

  • Monitor model outputs for anomalies, drift, suspicious prompting patterns.

  • Use “canary” prompts or test probes to detect model corruption or behavior shifts.

  • Rate-limit or throttle requests to model endpoints.

  • Use AI-defense systems to detect prompt injection or malicious patterns.

  • Flag or block high-risk output paths (e.g. outputs that contain PII, internal config, backdoor triggers).

Operational Integration

Security–Data Science Collaboration

  • Embed security engineers in the AI development lifecycle (shift-left).

  • Educate data scientists in adversarial ML, model risks, privacy constraints.

  • Use cross-functional review boards for high-risk model deployments.

Shadow AI Discovery & Mitigation

  • Monitor outbound traffic or SaaS logins for generative AI usage.

  • Use SaaS monitoring tools or proxy policies to intercept and flag unsanctioned AI use.

  • Deploy internal tools or wrappers for generative AI that inject audit controls.

  • Train employees and publish acceptable use policies for AI usage.

Runtime Controls & Continuous Testing

  • Periodically red-team models (both internal and third-party) to detect vulnerabilities.

  • Revalidate models after each update or retrain.

  • Set up incident response plans specific to AI incidents (model rollback, containment).

  • Conduct regular audits of model behavior, logs, and drift performance.

Case Studies & Real-World Failures & Successes

  • Researchers have found that injecting as few as 250 malicious documents can backdoor a model.

  • Foundation model leakage incidents have been demonstrated in academic research (models regurgitating verbatim input).

  • Organizations like Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, and OpenAI are starting to offer tools and guardrails (rate limits, privacy options, usage logging) to support enterprise introspection.

  • Some enterprises are mandating all internal AI interactions to flow through a “governed AI proxy” layer to filter or scrub prompts/outputs.

Roadmap / Maturity Model

I propose a phased model:

  1. Awareness & Inventory

    • Catalog AI/ML assets

    • Basic training & policies

    • Executive buy-in

  2. Baseline Controls

    • Access controls, audit logging

    • Data sanitization & DLP for AI pipelines

    • Shadow AI monitoring

  3. Model Protection & Hardening

    • Differential privacy, adversarial testing, prompt filters

    • Runtime anomaly detection

    • Sandbox staging

  4. Audit, Metrics & Continuous Improvement

    • Regular red teaming

    • Drift detection & revalidation

    • Integration into ERM / compliance

    • Internal assurance & audit loops

  5. Advanced Guardrails & Automation

    • Automated policy enforcement

    • Self-healing / rollback mechanisms

    • Formal verification, provable defenses

    • Model explainability & transparency audits

By advancing along this maturity curve, enterprises can evolve from reactive posture to proactive, governed, and resilient AI operations—reducing risk while still reaping the transformative potential of generative technologies.

Need Help or More Information?

Contact MicroSolved and put our deep expertise to work for you in this area. Email us (info@microsolved.com) or give us a call (+1.614.351.1237) for a no-hassle, no-pressure discussion of your needs and our capabilities. We look forward to helping you protect today and predict what is coming next. 

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

OT & IT Convergence: Defending the Industrial Attack Surface in 2025

Posted on by
Reply

In 2025, the boundary between IT and operational technology (OT) is more porous than ever. What once were siloed environments are now deeply intertwined—creating new opportunities for efficiency, but also a vastly expanded attack surface. For industrial, manufacturing, energy, and critical infrastructure operators, the stakes are high: disruption in OT is real-world damage, not just data loss.

PLC

This article lays out the problem space, dissecting how adversaries move, where visibility fails, and what defense strategies are maturing in this fraught environment.

The Convergence Imperative — and Its Risks

What Is IT/OT Convergence?

IT/OT convergence is the process of integrating information systems (e.g. ERP, MES, analytics, control dashboards) with OT systems (e.g. SCADA, DCS, PLCs, RTUs). The goal: unify data flows, enable predictive maintenance, real-time monitoring, control logic feedback loops, operational analytics, and better asset management.

Yet, as IT and OT merge, their worlds’ assumptions—availability, safety, patch cycles, threat models—collide. OT demands always-on control; IT is optimized for data confidentiality and dynamic architecture. Bridging the two without opening the gates to compromise is the core challenge.

Why 2025 Is Different (and Dangerous)

  • Attacks are physical now. The 2025 Waterfall Threat Report shows a dramatic rise in attacks with physical consequences—shut-downs, equipment damage, lost output. Waterfall Security Solutions

  • Ransomware and state actors converge on OT. OT environments are now a primary target for adversaries aiming for disruption, not just data theft. zeronetworks.com+2Industrial Cyber+2

  • Device proliferation, blind spots. The explosion of IIoT/OT-connected sensors and actuators means incremental exposures mount. Nexus+2IAEE+2

  • Legacy systems with little guardrails. Many OT systems were never built with security in mind; patching is difficult or impossible. SSH+2Industrial Cyber+2

  • Stronger regulation and visibility demands. Critical infrastructure sectors face growing pressure—and liability—for cyber resilience. Honeywell+2Fortinet+2

  • Maturing defenders. Some organizations are already reducing attack frequency through segmentation, threat intelligence, and leadership-driven strategies. Fortinet

Attack Flow: From IT to OT — How the Adversary Moves

Understanding attacker paths is key to defending the convergence.

  1. Initial foothold in IT. Phishing, vulnerabilities, supply chain, remote access are typical vectors.

  2. Lateral movement toward bridging zones. Jump servers, VPNs, misconfigured proxies, flat networks let attackers pivot. Industrial Cyber+2zeronetworks.com+2

  3. Transit through DMZ / industrial demilitarized zones. Poorly controlled conduits allow protocol bridging, data transfer, or command injection. iotsecurityinstitute.com+2Palo Alto Networks+2

  4. Exploit OT protocols and logic. Once in the OT zone, attackers abuse weak or proprietary protocols (Modbus, EtherNet/IP, S7, etc.), manipulate command logic, disable safety interlocks. arXiv+2iotsecurityinstitute.com+2

  5. Physical disruption or sabotage. Alter sensor thresholds, open valves, shut down systems, or destroy equipment.

Because OT environments often have weaker monitoring and fewer detection controls, malicious actions may go unnoticed until damage occurs.

The Visibility & Inventory Gap

You can’t protect what you can’t see.

  • Publicly exposed OT devices number in the tens of thousands globally—many running legacy firmware with known critical vulnerabilities. arXiv

  • Some organizations report only minimal visibility into OT activity within central security operations. Nasstar

  • Legacy or proprietary protocols (e.g. serial, Modbus, nonstandard encodings) resist detection by standard IT tools.

  • Asset inventories are often stale, manual, or incomplete.

  • Patch lifecycle data, firmware versions, configuration drift are poorly tracked in OT systems.

Bridging that visibility gap is a precondition for any robust defense in the converged world.

Architectural Controls: Segmentation, Microperimeters & Zero Trust for OT

You must treat OT not as a static, trusted zone but as a layered, zero-trust-aware domain.

1. Zone & Conduit Model

Apply segmentation by functional zones (process control, supervisory, DMZ, enterprise) and use controlled conduits for traffic. This limits blast radius. iotsecurityinstitute.com+2Palo Alto Networks+2

2. Microperimeters & Microsegmentation

Within a zone, restrict east-west traffic. Only permit communications justified by policy and process. Use software-defined controls or enforcement at gateway devices.

3. Zero Trust Principles for OT

  • Least privilege access: Human, service, and device accounts should only have the rights they need to perform tasks. iotsecurityinstitute.com+1

  • Continuous verification: Authenticate and revalidate sessions, devices, and commands.

  • Context-based access: Enforce access based on time, behavior, process state, operational context.

  • Secure access overlays: Replace jump boxes and VPNs with secure, isolated access conduits that broker access rather than exposing direct paths. Industrial Cyber+1

4. Isolation & Filtering of Protocols

Deep understanding of OT protocols is required to permit or deny specific commands or fields. Use protocol-aware firewalls or DPI (deep packet inspection) for industrial protocols.

5. Redundancy & Fail-Safe Paths

Architect fallback paths and redundancy such that the failure of a security component doesn’t cascade into OT downtime.

Detection & Response in OT Environments

Because OT environments are often low-change, anomaly-based detection is especially valuable.

Anomaly & Behavioral Monitoring

Use models of normal process behavior, network traffic baselines, and device state transitions to detect deviations. This approach catches zero-days and novel attacks that signature tools miss. Nozomi Networks+2zeronetworks.com+2

Protocol-Aware Monitoring

Deep inspection of industrial protocols (Modbus, DNP3, EtherNet/IP, S7) lets you detect invalid or dangerous commands (e.g. disabling PLC logic, spoofing commands).

Hybrid IT/OT SOCs & Playbooks

Forging a unified operations center that spans IT and OT (or tightly coordinates) is vital. Incident playbooks should understand process impact, safe rollback paths, and physical fallback strategies.

Response & Containment

  • Quarantine zones or devices quickly.

  • Use “safe shutdown” logic rather than blunt kill switches.

  • Leverage automated rollback or fail-safe states.

  • Ensure forensic capture of device commands and logs for post-mortem.

Patch, Maintenance & Change in OT Environments

Patching is thorny in OT—disrupting uptime or control logic can have dire consequences. But ignoring vulnerabilities is not viable either.

Risk-Based Patch Prioritization

Prioritize based on:

  1. Criticality of the device (safety, control, reliability).

  2. Exposure (whether reachable from IT or remote networks).

  3. Known exploitability and threat context.

Scheduled Windows & Safe Rollouts

Use maintenance windows, laboratory testing, staged rollouts, and fallback plans to apply patches in controlled fashion.

Virtual Patching / Compensating Controls

Where direct patching is impractical, employ compensating controls—firewall rules, filtering, command-level controls, or wrappers that mediate traffic.

Vendor Coordination & Secure Updates

Work with vendors for safe update mechanisms, integrity verification, rollback capability, and cryptographic signing of firmware.

Configuration Lockdown & Hardening

Disable unused services, remove default accounts, enforce least privilege controls, and lock down configuration interfaces. Industrial Cyber

Operating in Hybrid Environments: Best Practices & Pitfalls

  • Journeys, not Big Bangs. Start with a pilot cell or site; mature gradually.

  • Cross-domain teams. Build integrated IT/OT guardrails teams; train OT engineers with security awareness and IT folk with process sensitivity. iotsecurityinstitute.com+2Secomea+2

  • Change management & governance. Formal processes must span both domains, with risk acceptance, escalation, and rollback capabilities.

  • Security debt awareness. Legacy systems will always exist; plan compensating controls, migration paths, or compensating wrappers.

  • Simulation & digital twins. Use testbeds or digital twins to validate security changes before deployment.

  • Supply chain & third-party access. Strong control over third-party remote access is essential—no direct device access unless brokered and constrained. Industrial Cyber+2zeronetworks.com+2

Governance, Compliance & Regulatory Alignment

  • Map your security controls to frameworks such as ISA/IEC 62443, NIST SP 800‑82, and relevant national ICS/OT guidelines. iotsecurityinstitute.com+2Tenable®+2

  • Develop risk governance that includes process safety, availability, and cybersecurity in tandem.

  • Align with critical infrastructure regulation (e.g. NIS2 in Europe, SEC cyber rules, local ICS/OT mandates). Honeywell+1

  • Build executive visibility and metrics (mean time to containment, blast radius, safety impact) to support prioritization.

Roadmap: From Zero → Maturity

Here’s a rough maturation path you might use:

Phase Focus Key Activities
Pilot / Awareness Reduce risk in one zone Map asset inventory, segment pilot cell, deploy detection sensors
Hardening & Control Extend structural defenses Enforce microperimeters, apply least privilege, protocol filtering
Detection & Response Build visibility & control Anomaly detection, OT-aware monitoring, SOC integration
Patching & Maintenance Improve security hygiene Risk-based patching, vendor collaboration, configuration lockdown
Scale & Governance Expand and formalize Extend to all zones, incident playbooks, governance models, metrics, compliance
Continuous Optimization Adapt & refine Threat intelligence feedback, lessons learned, iterative improvements

Start small, show value, then scale incrementally—don’t try to boil the ocean in one leap.

Use Case Scenarios

  1. Remote Maintenance Abuse
    A vendor’s remote access via a jump host is compromised. The attacker uses that jump host to send commands to PLCs via an unfiltered conduit, shutting down a production line.

  2. Logic Tampering via Protocol Abuse
    An attacker intercepts commands over EtherNet/IP and alters setpoints on a pressure sensor—causing shock pressure and damaging equipment before operators notice.

  3. Firmware Exploit on Legacy Device
    A field RTU is running firmware with a known remote vulnerability. The attacker exploits that, gains control, and uses it as a pivot point deeper into OT.

  4. Lateral Movement from IT
    A phishing campaign generates a foothold on IT. The attacker escalates privileges, accesses the central historian, and from there reaches into OT DMZ and onward.

Each scenario highlights the need for segmentation, detection, and disciplined control at each boundary.

Checklist & Practical Guidance

  • ⚙️ Inventory & visibility: Map all OT/IIoT devices, asset data, communications, and protocols.

  • 🔒 Zone & micro‑segment: Enforce strict controls around process, supervisory, and enterprise connectivity.

  • ✅ Least privilege and zero trust: Limit access to the minimal set of rights, revalidate often.

  • 📡 Protocol filtering: Use deep packet inspection to validate or block unsafe commands.

  • 💡 Anomaly detection: Use behavioral models, baselining, and alerts on deviations.

  • 🛠 Patching strategy: Risk-based prioritization, scheduled windows, fallback planning.

  • 🧷 Hardening & configuration control: Remove unused services, lock down interfaces, enforce secure defaults.

  • 🔀 Incident playbooks: Include safe rollback, forensic capture, containment paths.

  • 👥 Cross-functional teams: Co-locate or synchronize OT, IT, security, operations staff.

  • 📈 Metrics & executive reporting: Use security KPIs contextualized to safety, availability, and damage containment.

  • 🔄 Continuous review & iteration: Ingest lessons learned, threat intelligence, and adapt.

  • 📜 Framework alignment: Use ISA/IEC 62443, NIST 800‑82, or sector-specific guidelines.

Final Thoughts

As of 2025, you can’t treat OT as a passive, hidden domain. The convergence is inevitable—and attackers know it. The good news is that mature defense strategies are emerging: segmentation, zero trust, anomaly-based detection, and governance-focused integration.

The path forward is not about plugging every hole at once. It’s about building layered defenses, prioritizing by criticality, and evolving your posture incrementally. In a world where a successful exploit can physically damage infrastructure or disrupt a grid, the resilience you build today may be your strongest asset tomorrow.

More Info and Assistance

For discussion, more information, or assistance, please contact us. (614) 351-1237 will get us on the phone, and info@microsolved.com will get us via email. Reach out to schedule a no-hassle and no-pressure discussion. Put out 30+ years of OT experience to work for you! 

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Quantum Readiness in Cybersecurity: When & How to Prepare

Posted on by
Reply

“We don’t get a say about when quantum is coming — only how ready we will be when it arrives.”

QuantumCrypto

Why This Matters

While quantum computers powerful enough to break today’s public‑key cryptography do not yet exist (or at least are not known to exist), the cryptographic threat is no longer theoretical. Nations, large enterprises, and research institutions are investing heavily in quantum, and the possibility of “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks means that sensitive data captured today could be exposed years down the road.

Standards bodies are already defining post‑quantum cryptographic (PQC) algorithms. Organizations that fail to build agility and transition roadmaps now risk being left behind — or worse, suffering catastrophic breaches when the quantum era arrives.

To date, many security teams lack a concrete plan or roadmap for quantum readiness. This article outlines a practical, phased approach: what quantum means for cryptography, how standards are evolving, strategies for transition, and pitfalls to avoid.

What Quantum Computing Means for Cryptography

To distill the challenge:

  • Shor’s algorithm (and related advances) threatens to break widely used asymmetric algorithms — RSA, ECC, discrete logarithm–based schemes — rendering many of our public key systems vulnerable.

  • Symmetric algorithms (AES, SHA) are more resistant; quantum can only offer a “square‑root” speedup (Grover’s algorithm), so doubling key sizes can mitigate that threat.

  • The real cryptographic crisis lies in key exchange, digital signatures, certificates, and identity systems that rely on public-key primitives.

  • Because many business systems, devices, and data have long lifetimes, we must assume some of today’s data, if intercepted, may become decryptable in the future (i.e. the “store now, crack later” model).

In short: quantum changes the assumptions undergirding modern cryptographic infrastructure.

Roadmap: PQC in Standards & Transition Phases

Over recent years, standards organizations have moved from theory to actionable transition planning:

  • NIST PQC standardization
    In August 2024, NIST published the first set of FIPS‑approved PQC algorithms: lattice‑based (e.g. CRYSTALS-Kyber, CRYSTALS-Dilithium), hash-based signatures, etc. These are intended as drop-in replacements for many public-key roles. Encryption Consulting+3World Economic Forum+3NIST Pages+3

  • NIST SP 1800‑38 (Migration guidance)
    The NCCoE’s “Migration to Post‑Quantum Cryptography” guide (draft) outlines a structured, multi-step migration: inventory, vendor engagement, pilot, validation, transition, deprecation. NCCoE

  • Crypto‑agility discussion
    NIST has released a draft whitepaper “Considerations for Achieving Crypto‑Agility” to encourage flexible architecture designs that allow seamless swapping of cryptographic primitives. AppViewX

  • Regulatory & sector guidance
    In the financial world, the BIS is urging quantum-readiness and structured roadmaps for banks. PostQuantum.com
    Meanwhile in health care and IoT, device lifecycles necessitate quantum-ready cryptographic design now. medcrypt.com

Typical projected milestones that many organizations use as heuristics include:

Milestone Target Year
Inventory & vendor engagement 2025–2027
Pilot / hybrid deployment 2027–2029
Broader production adoption 2030–2032
Deprecation of legacy / full PQC By 2035 (or earlier in some sectors)

These are not firm deadlines, but they reflect common planning horizons in current guidance documents.

Transition Strategies & Building Crypto Agility

Because migrating cryptography is neither trivial nor instantaneous, your strategy should emphasize flexibility, modularity, and iterative deployment.

Core principles of a good transition:

  1. Decouple cryptographic logic
    Design your code, libraries, and systems so that the cryptographic algorithm (or provider) can be replaced without large structural rewrites.

  2. Layered abstraction / adapters
    Use cryptographic abstraction layers or interfaces, so that switching from RSA → PQC → hybrid to full PQC is easier.

  3. Support multi‑suite / multi‑algorithm negotiation
    Protocols should permit negotiation of algorithm suites (classical, hybrid, PQC) as capabilities evolve.

  4. Vendor and library alignment
    Engage vendors early: ensure they support your agility goals, supply chain updates, and PQC readiness (or roadmaps).

  5. Monitor performance & interoperability tradeoffs
    PQC algorithms generally have larger key sizes, signature sizes, or overheads. Be ready to benchmark and tune.

  6. Fallback and downgrade-safe methods
    In early phases, include fallback to known-good classical algorithms, with strict controls and fallbacks flagged.

In other words: don’t wait to refactor your architecture so that cryptography is a replaceable module.

Hybrid Deployments: The Interim Bridge

During the transition period, hybrid schemes (classical + PQC) will be critical for layered security and incremental adoption.

  • Hybrid key exchange / signatures
    Many protocols propose combining classical and PQC algorithms (e.g. ECDH + Kyber) so that breaking one does not compromise the entire key. arXiv

  • Dual‑stack deployment
    Some servers may advertise both classical and PQC capabilities, negotiating which path to use.

  • Parallel validation / testing mode
    Run PQC in “passive mode” — generate PQC signatures or keys, but don’t yet rely on them — to collect metrics, test for interoperability, and validate correctness.

Hybrid deployments allow early testing and gradual adoption without fully abandoning classical cryptography until PQC maturity and confidence are achieved.

Asset Discovery & Cryptographic Inventory

One of the first and most critical steps is to build a full inventory of cryptographic use in your environment:

  • Catalog which assets (applications, services, APIs, devices, endpoints) use public-key cryptography (for key exchange, digital signatures, identity, etc.).

  • Use automated tools or static analysis to detect cryptographic algorithm usage in code, binaries, libraries, embedded firmware, TLS stacks, PKI, hardware security modules.

  • Identify dependencies and software libraries (open source, vendor libraries) that may embed vulnerable algorithms.

  • Map data flows, encryption boundaries, and cryptographic trust zones (e.g. cross‑domain, cross‑site, legacy systems).

  • Assess lifespan: which systems or data are going to persist into the 2030s? Those deserve priority.

The NIST migration guide emphasizes that a cryptographic inventory is foundational and must be revisited as you migrate. NCCoE

Without comprehensive visibility, you risk blind spots or legacy systems that never get upgraded.

Testing & Validation Framework

Transitioning cryptographic schemes is a high-stakes activity. You’ll need a robust framework to test correctness, performance, security, and compatibility.

Key components:

  1. Functional correctness tests
    Ensure new PQC signatures, key exchanges, and validations interoperate correctly with clients, servers, APIs, and cross-vendor systems.

  2. Interoperability tests
    Test across different library implementations, versions, OS, devices, cryptographic modules (HSMs, TPMs), firmware, etc.

  3. Performance benchmarking
    Monitor latency, CPU, memory, and network overhead. Some PQC schemes have larger signatures or keys, so assess impact under load.

  4. Security analysis & fuzzing
    Integrate fuzz testing around PQC inputs, edge conditions, degenerate cases, and fallback logic to catch vulnerabilities.

  5. Backwards compatibility / rollback plans
    Include “off-ramps” in case PQC adoption causes unanticipated failures, with graceful rollback to classical crypto where safe.

  6. Continuous regression & monitoring
    As PQC libraries evolve, maintain regression suites ensuring no backward-compatibility breakage or cryptographic regressions.

You should aim to embed PQC in your CI/CD and DevSecOps pipelines early, so that changes are automatically tested and verified.

Barriers, Pitfalls, & Risk Mitigation

No transition is without challenges. Below are common obstacles and how to mitigate them:

Challenge Pitfall Mitigation
Performance / overhead Some PQC algorithms bring large keys, heavy memory or CPU usage Benchmark early, select PQC suites suited to your use case (e.g. low-latency, embedded), optimize or tune cryptographic libraries
Vendor or ecosystem lag Lack of PQC support in software, libraries, devices, or firmware Engage vendors early, request PQC roadmaps, prefer components with modular crypto, sponsor PQC support projects
Interoperability issues PQC standards are still maturing; multiple implementations may vary Use hybrid negotiation, test across vendors, maintain fallbacks, participate in interoperability test beds
Supply chain surprises Upstream components (third-party libraries, devices) embed hard‑coded crypto Demand transparency, require crypto-agility clauses, vet supplier crypto plans, enforce security requirements
Legacy / embedded systems Systems cannot be upgraded (e.g. firmware, IoT, industrial devices) Prioritize replacement or isolation, use compensating controls, segment legacy systems away from critical domains
Budget, skills, and complexity The costs and human capital required may be significant Start small, build a phased plan, reuse existing resources, invest in training, enlist external expertise
Incorrect or incomplete inventory Missing cryptographic dependencies lead to breakout vulnerabilities Use automated discovery tools, validate by code review and runtime analysis, maintain continuous updates
Overconfidence or “wait and see” mindset Delay transition until quantum threat is immediate, losing lead time Educate leadership, model risk of “harvest now, decrypt later,” push incremental wins early

Mitigation strategy is about managing risk over time — you may not jump to full PQC overnight, but you can reduce exposure in controlled steps.

When to Accelerate vs When to Wait

How do you decide whether to push harder or hold off?

Signals to accelerate:

  • You store or transmit highly sensitive data with long lifetimes (intellectual property, health, financial, national security).

  • Regulatory, compliance, or sector guidance (e.g. finance, energy) begins demanding or recommending PQC.

  • Your system has a long development lifecycle (embedded, medical, industrial) — you must bake in agility early.

  • You have established inventory and architecture foundations, so investment can scale linearly.

  • Vendor ecosystem is starting to support PQC, making adoption less risky.

  • You detect a credible quantum threat to your peer organizations or competitors.

Reasons to delay or pace carefully:

  • PQC implementations or libraries for your use cases are immature or lack hardening.

  • Performance or resource constraints render PQC impractical today.

  • Interoperability with external partners or clients (who are not quantum-ready) is a blocking dependency.

  • Budget or staffing constraints overwhelm other higher-priority security work.

  • Your data’s retention horizon is short (e.g. ephemeral, ephemeral sessions) and quantum risk is lower.

In most real-world organizations, the optimal path is measured acceleration: begin early but respect engineering and operational constraints.

Suggested Phased Approach (High-Level Roadmap)

  1. Awareness & executive buy-in
    Educate leadership on quantum risk, “harvest now, decrypt later,” and the cost of delay.

  2. Inventory & discovery
    Build cryptographic asset maps (applications, services, libraries, devices) and identify high-risk systems.

  3. Agility refactoring
    Modularize cryptographic logic, build adapter layers, adopt negotiation frameworks.

  4. Vendor engagement & alignment
    Query, influence, and iterate vendor support for PQC and crypto‑agility.

  5. Pilot / hybrid deployment
    Test PQC in non-critical systems or in hybrid mode, collect metrics, validate interoperability.

  6. Incremental rollout
    Expand to more use cases, deprecate classical algorithms gradually, monitor downstream dependencies.

  7. Full transition & decommissioning
    Remove legacy vulnerable algorithms, enforce PQC-only policies, archive or destroy old keys.

  8. Sustain & evolve
    Monitor PQC algorithm evolution or deprecation, incorporate new variants, update interoperability as standards evolve.

Conclusion & Call to Action

Quantum readiness is no longer a distant, speculative concept — it’s fast becoming an operational requirement for organizations serious about long-term data protection.

But readiness doesn’t mean rushing blindly into PQC. The successful path is incremental, agile, and risk-managed:

  • Start with visibility and inventory

  • Build architecture that supports change

  • Pilot carefully with hybrid strategies

  • Leverage community and standards

  • Monitor performance and evolve your approach

If you haven’t already, now is the time to begin — even a year of head start can mean the difference between being proactive versus scrambling under crisis.

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Regulatory Pitfalls: MS‑ISAC Funding Loss and NIS 2 Uncertainty

Posted on by
Reply

Timeline: When Federal Support Runs Out

  • MS‑ISAC at the tipping point
    Come September 30, 2025, federal funding for the Multi‑State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS‑ISAC) is slated to expire—and DHS with no plans to renew it Axios+1. The $27 million annual appropriation ends that day, and MS‑ISAC may shift entirely to a fee‑based membership model Axios+1CIS. This follows a $10 million cut earlier in March, which halved its budget National Association of CountiesAxios. Lawmakers are eyeing either a short‑term funding extension or reinstatement for FY 2026 nossaman.com.

Impact Analysis: What’s at Stake Without MS‑ISAC

  • Threat intelligence hangs in the balance. Nearly 19,000 state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) entities—from utilities and schools to local governments—rely on MS‑ISAC for timely alerts on emerging threats Axios+2Axios+2.

  • Real-time sharing infrastructure—like a 24/7 Security Operations Center, feeds such as ALBERT and MDBR, incident response coordination, training, collaboration, and working groups—are jeopardized CISWikipedia.

  • States are pushing back. Governor associations have formally urged Congress to restore funding for this critical cyber defense lifeline Industrial CyberAxios.

Without MS‑ISAC’s steady support, local agencies risk losing a coordinated advantage in defending against increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks—just when threats are rising.

NIS 2 Status Breakdown: Uneven EU Adoption and Organizational Uncertainty

Current State of Transposition (Mid‑2025)

  • Delayed national incorporation. Though EU member states were required to transpose NIS 2 into law by October 17, 2024, as of July 2025, only 14 out of 27 have done so TechRadarFTI ConsultingCoalfire.

  • The European Commission has launched infringement proceedings against non‑compliant member states CoalfireGreenberg Traurig.

  • A June 30, 2026 deadline now marks the first audit phase for compliance, a bump from the original target of end‑2025 ECSO.

  • Implementation is uneven: some countries like Hungary, Slovakia, Greece, Slovenia, North Macedonia, Malta, Finland, Romania, Cyprus, Denmark have transposed NIS 2, but many others remain in progress or partially compliant ECSOGreenberg Traurig.

Organizational Challenges & Opportunities

  • Fragmented compliance environment. Businesses across sectors—particularly healthcare, maritime, gas, public admin, ICT, and space—face confusion and complexity from inconsistent national implementations IT Pro.

  • Compliance tools matter. Automated identity and access management (IAM) platforms are critical for enforcing NIS 2’s zero‑trust access requirements, such as just‑in‑time privilege and centralized dashboards TechRadar.

  • A dual approach for organizations: start with quick wins—appointing accountable leaders, inventorying assets, plugging hygiene gaps—and scale into strategic risk assessments, supplier audits, ISO 27001 alignment, and response planning IT ProTechRadar.

Mitigation Options: Building Resilience Amid Regulatory Flux

For U.S. SLTT Entities

Option Description
Advocacy & lobbying Engage state/local leaders and associations to push Congress for reinstated or extended MS‑ISAC funding Industrial CyberAxios.
Short‑term extension Monitor efforts for stop‑gap funding past September 2025 to avoid disruption nossaman.com.
Fee‑based membership Develop internal cost‑benefit models for scaled membership tiers, noting offers intended to serve “cyber‑underserved” smaller jurisdictions CIS.
Alternate alliances Explore regional ISACs or mutual aid agreements as fallback plans.

For EU Businesses & SLTT Advisors

Option Description
Monitor national adoption Track each country’s transposition status and defer deadlines—France and Germany may lag; others moved faster Greenberg TraurigCoalfireECSO.
Adopt IAM automation Leverage tools for role‑based access, just‑in‑time privileges, audit dashboards—compliance enablers under NIS 2 TechRadar.
Layered compliance strategy Start with foundational actions (asset mapping, governance), then invest in risk frameworks and supplier audits IT ProTechRadar.

Intersection with Broader Trends

  1. Automation as a compliance accelerator. Whether in the U.S. or EU, automation platforms for identity, policy mapping, or incident reporting bridge gaps in fluid regulatory environments.

  2. Hybrid governance pressures. Local agencies and cross‑border firms must adapt to both decentralized cyber defense (US states) and fragmented transposition (EU member states)—a systems approach is essential.

  3. AI‑enabled readiness. Policy mapping tools informed by AI could help organizations anticipate timeline changes, compliance gaps, and audit priorities.

Conclusion: Why This Matters Now

By late September 2025, U.S. SLTT entities face a sudden pivot: either justify membership fees to sustain cyber intelligence pipelines or brace for isolation. Meanwhile, EU‑region organizations—especially those serving essential services—must navigate a patchwork of national laws, with varying enforcement and a hard deadline extended through mid‑2026.

This intersection of regulatory pressure, budget instability, and technological transition makes this a pivotal moment for strategic, systems‑based resilience planning. The agencies and businesses that act now—aligning automated tools, coalition strategies, and policy insight—will surge ahead in cybersecurity posture and readiness.

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Distracted Minds, Not Sophisticated Cyber Threats — Why Human Factors Now Reign Supreme

Posted on by
Reply

Problem Statement: In cybersecurity, we’ve long feared the specter of advanced malware and AI-enabled attacks. Yet today’s frontline is far more mundane—and far more human. Distraction, fatigue, and lack of awareness among employees now outweigh technical threats as the root cause of security incidents.

A woman standing in a room lit by bright fluorescent lights surrounded by whiteboards and sticky notes filled with ideas sketching out concepts and plans 5728491

A KnowBe4 study released in August 2025 sets off alarm bells: 43 % of security incidents stem from employee distraction—while only 17 % involve sophisticated attacks.

1. Distraction vs. Technical Threats — A Face-off

The numbers are telling:

  • Distraction: 43 %

  • Lack of awareness training: 41 %

  • Fatigue or burnout: 31 %

  • Pressure to act quickly: 33 %

  • Sophisticated attack (the myths we fear): just 17 %

What explains the gap between perceived threat and actual risk? The answer lies in human bandwidth—our cognitive load, overload, and vulnerability under distraction. Cyber risk is no longer about perimeter defense—it’s about human cognitive limits.

Meanwhile, phishing remains the dominant attack vector—74 % of incidents—often via impersonation of executives or trusted colleagues.

2. Reviving Security Culture: Avoid “Engagement Fatigue”

Many organizations rely on awareness training and phishing simulations, but repetition without innovation breeds fatigue.

Here’s how to refresh your security culture:

  • Contextualized, role-based training – tailor scenarios to daily workflows (e.g., finance staff vs. HR) so the relevance isn’t lost.

  • Micro-learning and practice nudges – short, timely prompts that reinforce good security behavior (e.g., reminders before onboarding tasks or during common high-risk activities).

  • Leadership modeling – when leadership visibly practices security—verifying emails, using MFA—it normalizes behavior across the organization.

  • Peer discussions and storytelling – real incident debriefs (anonymized, of course) often land harder than scripted scenarios.

Behavioral analytics can drive these nudges. For example: detect when sensitive emails are opened, when copy-paste occurs from external sources, or when MFA overrides happen unusually. Then trigger a gentle “Did you mean to do this?” prompt.

3. Emerging Risk: AI-Generated Social Engineering

Though only about 11 % of respondents have encountered AI threats so far, 60 % fear AI-generated phishing and deepfakes in the near future.

This fear is well-placed. A deepfake voice or video “CEO” request is far more convincing—and dangerous.

Preparedness strategies include:

  • Red teaming AI threats — simulate deepfake or AI-generated social engineering in safe environments.

  • Multi-factor and human challenge points — require confirmations via secondary channels (e.g., “Call the sender” rule).

  • Employee resilience training — teach detection cues (synthetic audio artifacts, uncanny timing, off-script wording).

  • AI citizenship policies — proactively define what’s allowed in internal tools, communication, and collaboration platforms.

4. The Confidence Paradox

Nearly 90 % of security leaders feel confident in their cyber-resilience—yet the data tells us otherwise.

Overconfidence can blind us: we might under-invest in human risk management while trusting tech to cover all our bases.

5. A Blueprint for Human-Centric Defense

Problem Actionable Solution
Engagement fatigue with awareness training Use micro-learning, role-based scenarios, and frequent but brief content
Lack of behavior change Employ real-time nudges and behavioral analytics to catch risky actions before harm
Distraction, fatigue Promote wellness, reduce task overload, implement focus-support scheduling
AI-driven social engineering Test with red teams, enforce cross-channel verification, build detection literacy
Overconfidence Benchmark human risk metrics (click rates, incident reports); tie performance to behavior outcomes

Final Thoughts

At its heart, cybersecurity remains a human endeavor. We chase the perfect firewall, but our biggest vulnerabilities lie in our own cognitive gaps. The KnowBe4 study shows that distraction—not hacker sophistication—is the dominant risk in 2025. It’s time to adapt.

We must refresh how we engage our people—not just with better tools, but with better empathy, smarter training design, and the foresight to counter AI-powered con games.

This is the human-centered security shift Brent Huston has championed. Let’s own it.

Help and More Information

If your organization is struggling to combat distraction, engagement fatigue, or the evolving risk of AI-powered social engineering, MicroSolved can help.

Our team specializes in behavioral analytics, adaptive awareness programs, and human-focused red teaming. Let’s build a more resilient, human-aware security culture—together.

👉 Reach out to MicroSolved today to schedule a consultation or request more information. (info@microsolved.com or +1.614.351.1237)

References

  1. KnowBe4. Infosecurity Europe 2025: Human Error & Cognitive Risk Findings. knowbe4.com

  2. ITPro. Employee distraction is now your biggest cybersecurity risk. itpro.com

  3. Sprinto. Trends in 2025 Cybersecurity Culture and Controls.

  4. Deloitte Insights. Behavioral Nudges in Security Awareness Programs.

  5. Axios & Wikipedia. AI-Generated Deepfakes and Psychological Manipulation Trends.

  6. TechRadar. The Growing Threat of AI in Phishing & Vishing.

  7. MSI :: State of Security. Human Behavior Modeling in Red Teaming Environments.

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

The New Golden Hour in Ransomware Defense

Posted on by
Reply

Organizations today face a dire reality: ransomware campaigns—often orchestrated as Ransomware‑as‑a‑Service (RaaS)—are engineered for speed. Leveraging automation and affiliate models, attackers breach, spread, and encrypt entire networks in well under 60 minutes. The traditional incident response window has all but vanished.

This shrinking breach-to-impact interval—what we now call the ransomware golden hour—demands a dramatic reframing of how security teams think, plan, and respond.

ChatGPT Image Aug 19 2025 at 10 34 40 AM

Why It Matters

Attackers now move faster than ever. A rising number of campaigns are orchestrated through RaaS platforms, democratizing highly sophisticated tools and lowering the technical barrier for attackers[1]. When speed is baked into the attack lifecycle, traditional defense mechanisms struggle to keep pace.

Analysts warn that these hyper‑automated intrusions are leaving security teams in a race against time—with breach response windows shrinking inexorably, and full network encryption occurring in under an hour[2].

The Implications

  • Delayed detection equals catastrophic failure. Every second counts: if detection slips beyond the first minute, containment may already be too late.
  • Manual response no longer cuts it. Threat hunting, playbook activation, and triage require automation and proactive orchestration.
  • Preparedness becomes survival. Only by rehearsing and refining the first 60 minutes can teams hope to blunt the attack’s impact.

What Automation Can—and Can’t—Do

What It Can Do

  • Accelerate detection with AI‑powered anomaly detection and behavior analysis.
  • Trigger automatic containment via EDR/XDR systems.
  • Enforce execution of playbooks with automation[3].

What It Can’t Do

  • Replace human judgment.
  • Compensate for lack of preparation.
  • Eliminate all dwell time.

Elements SOCs Must Pre‑Build for “First 60 Minutes” Response

  1. Clear detection triggers and alert criteria.
  2. Pre‑defined milestone checkpoints:
    • T+0 to T+15: Detection and immediate isolation.
    • T+15 to T+30: Network-wide containment.
    • T+30 to T+45: Damage assessment.
    • T+45 to T+60: Launch recovery protocols[4].
  3. Automated containment workflows[5].
  4. Clean, tested backups[6].
  5. Chain-of-command communication plans[7].
  6. Simulations and playbook rehearsals[8].

When Speed Makes the Difference: Real‑World Flash Points

  • Only 17% of enterprises paid ransoms in 2025. Rapid containment was key[6].
  • Disrupted ransomware gangs quickly rebrand and return[9].
  • St. Paul cyberattack: swift containment, no ransom paid[10].

Conclusion: Speed Is the New Defense

Ransomware has evolved into an operational race—powered by automation, fortified by crime‑as‑a‑service economics, and executed at breakneck pace. In this world, the golden hour isn’t a theory—it’s a mandate.

  • Design and rehearse a first‑60‑minute response playbook.
  • Automate containment while aligning with legal, PR, and executive workflows.
  • Ensure backups are clean and recovery-ready.
  • Stay agile—because attackers aren’t stuck on yesterday’s playbook.

References

  1. Wikipedia – Ransomware as a Service
  2. Itergy – The Golden Hour
  3. CrowdStrike – The 1/10/60 Minute Challenge
  4. CM-Alliance – Incident Response Playbooks
  5. Blumira – Incident Response for Ransomware
  6. ITPro – Enterprises and Ransom Payments
  7. Commvault – Ransomware Trends for 2025
  8. Veeam – Tabletop Exercises and Testing
  9. ITPro – BlackSuit Gang Resurfaces
  10. Wikipedia – 2025 St. Paul Cyberattack

 

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

 

CISO AI Board Briefing Kit: Governance, Policy & Risk Templates

Posted on by
Reply

Imagine the boardroom silence when the CISO begins: “Generative AI isn’t a futuristic luxury—it’s here, reshaping how we operate today.” The questions start: What is our AI exposure? Where are the risks? Can our policies keep pace? Today’s CISO must turn generative AI from something magical and theoretical into a grounded, business-relevant reality. That urgency is real—and tangible. The board needs clarity on AI’s ecosystem, real-world use cases, measurable opportunities, and framed risks. This briefing kit gives you the structure and language to lead that conversation.

ExecMeeting

Problem: Board Awareness + Risk Accountability

Most boards today are curious but dangerously uninformed about AI. Their mental models of the technology lag far behind reality. Much like the Internet or the printing press, AI is already driving shifts across operations, cybersecurity, and competitive strategy. Yet many leaders still dismiss it as a “staff automation tool” rather than a transformational force.

Without a structured briefing, boards may treat AI as an IT issue, not a C-suite strategic shift with existential implications. They underestimate the speed of change, the impact of bias or hallucination, and the reputational, legal, or competitive dangers of unmanaged deployment. The CISO must reframe AI as both a business opportunity and a pervasive risk domain—requiring board-level accountability. That means shifting the picture from vague hype to clear governance frameworks, measurable policy, and repeatable audit and reporting disciplines.

Boards deserve clarity about benefits like automation in logistics, risk analysis, finance, and security—which promise efficiency, velocity, and competitive advantage. But they also need visibility into AI-specific hazards like data leakage, bias, model misuse, and QA drift. This kit shows CISOs how to bring structure, vocabulary, and accountability into the conversation.

Framework: Governance Components

1. Risk & Opportunity Matrix

Frame generative AI in a two-axis matrix: Business Value vs Risk Exposure.

Opportunities:

  • Process optimization & automation: AI streamlines repetitive tasks in logistics, finance, risk modeling, scheduling, or security monitoring.

  • Augmented intelligence: Enhancing human expertise—e.g. helping analysts faster triage security events or fraud indicators.

  • Competitive differentiation: Early adopters gain speed, insight, and efficiency that laggards cannot match.

Risks:

  • Data leakage & privacy: Exposing sensitive information through prompts or model inference.

  • Model bias & fairness issues: Misrepresentation or skewed outcomes due to historical bias.

  • Model drift, hallucination & QA gaps: Over- or under-tuned models giving unreliable outputs.

  • Misuse or model sprawl: Unsupervised use of public LLMs leading to inconsistent behaviour.

Balanced, slow-trust adoption helps tip the risk-value calculus in your favor.

2. Policy Templates

Provide modular templates that frame AI like a “human agent in training,” not just software. Key policy areas:

  • Prompt Use & Approval: Define who can prompt models, in what contexts, and what approval workflow is needed.

  • Data Governance & Retention: Rules around what data is ingested or output by models.

  • Vendor & Model Evaluation: Due diligence criteria for third-party AI vendors.

  • Guardrails & Safety Boundaries: Use-case tiers (low-risk to high-risk) with corresponding controls.

  • Retraining & Feedback Loops: Establish schedule and criteria for retraining or tuning.

These templates ground policy in trusted business routines—reviews, approvals, credentialing, audits.

3. Training & Audit Plans

Reframe training as culture and competence building:

  • AI Literacy Module: Explain how generative AI works, its strengths/limitations, typical failure modes.

  • Role-based Training: Tailored for analysts, risk teams, legal, HR.

  • Governance Committee Workshops: Periodic sessions for ethics committee, legal, compliance, and senior leaders.

Audit cadence:

  • Ongoing Monitoring: Spot-checks, drift testing, bias metrics.

  • Trigger-based Audits: Post-upgrade, vendor shift, or use-case change.

  • Annual Governance Review: Executive audit of policy adherence, incidents, training, and model performance.

Audit AI like human-based systems—check habits, ensure compliance, adjust for drift.

4. Monitoring & Reporting Metrics

Technical Metrics:

  • Model performance: Accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score.

  • Bias & fairness: Disparate impact ratio, fairness score.

  • Interpretability: Explainability score, audit trail completeness.

  • Security & privacy: Privacy incidents, unauthorized access events, time to resolution.

Governance Metrics:

  • Audit frequency: % of AI deployments audited.

  • Policy compliance: % of use-cases under approved policy.

  • Training participation: % of staff trained, role-based completion rates.

Strategic Metrics:

  • Usage adoption: Active users or teams using AI.

  • Business impact: Time saved, cost reduction, productivity gains.

  • Compliance incidents: Escalations, regulatory findings.

  • Risk exposure change: High-risk projects remediated.

Boards need 5–7 KPIs on dashboards that give visibility without overload.

Implementation: Briefing Plan

Slide Deck Flow

  1. Title & Hook: “AI Isn’t Coming. It’s Here.”

  2. Risk-Opportunity Matrix: Visual quadrant.

  3. Use-Cases & Value: Case studies.

  4. Top Risks & Incidents: Real-world examples.

  5. Governance Framework: Your structure.

  6. Policy Templates: Categories and value.

  7. Training & Audit Plan: Timeline & roles.

  8. Monitoring Dashboard: Your KPIs.

  9. Next Steps: Approvals, pilot runway, ethics charter.

Talking Points & Backup Slides

  • Bullet prompts: QA audits, detection sample, remediation flow.

  • Backup slides: Model metrics, template excerpts, walkthroughs.

Q&A and Scenario Planning

Prep for board Qs:

  • Verifying output accuracy.

  • Legal exposure.

  • Misuse response plan.

Scenario A: Prompt exposes data. Show containment, audit, retraining.
Scenario B: Drift causes bad analytics. Show detection, rollback, adjustment.

When your board walks out, they won’t be AI experts. But they’ll be AI literate. And they’ll know your organization is moving forward with eyes wide open.

More Info and Assistance

At MicroSolved, we have been helping educate boards and leadership on cutting-edge technology issues for over 25 years. Put our expertise to work for you by simply reaching out to launch a discussion on AI, business use cases, information security issues, or other related topics. You can reach us at +1.614.351.1237 or info@microsolved.com.

We look forward to hearing from you! 

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Continuous Third‑Party Risk: From SBOM Pipelines to SLA Enforcement

Posted on by
Reply

Recent supply chain disasters—SolarWinds and MOVEit—serve as stark wake-up calls. These breaches didn’t originate inside corporate firewalls; they started upstream, where vendors and suppliers held the keys. SolarWinds’ Orion compromise slipped unseen through trusted vendor updates. MOVEit’s managed file transfer software opened an attack gateway to major organizations. These incidents underscore one truth: modern supply chains are porous, complex ecosystems. Traditional vendor audits, conducted quarterly or annually, are woefully inadequate. The moment a vendor’s environment shifts, your security posture does too—out of sync with your risk model. What’s needed isn’t another checkbox audit; it’s a system that continuously ingests, analyzes, and acts on real-world risk signals—before third parties become your weakest link.

ThirdPartyRiskCoin

The Danger of Static Assessments 

For decades, third-party risk management (TPRM) relied on periodic rites: contracts, questionnaires, audits. But those snapshots fail to capture evolving realities. A vendor may pass a SOC 2 review in January—then fall behind on patching in February, or suffer a credential leak in March. These static assessments leave blind spots between review windows.

Point-in-time audits also breed complacency. When a questionnaire is checked, it’s filed; no one revisits until the next cycle. During that gap, new vulnerabilities emerge, dependencies shift, and threats exploit outdated components. As noted by AuditBoard, effective programs must “structure continuous monitoring activities based on risk level”—not by arbitrary schedule AuditBoard.

Meanwhile, new vulnerabilities in vendor software may remain undetected for months, and breaches rarely align with compliance windows. In contrast, continuous third-party risk monitoring captures risk in motion—integrating dynamic SBOM scans, telemetry-based vendor hygiene signals, and SLA analytics. The result? A live risk view that’s as current as the threat landscape itself.

Framework: Continuous Risk Pipeline

Building a continuous risk pipeline demands a multi-pronged approach designed to ingest, correlate, alert—and ultimately enforce.

A. SBOM Integration: Scanning Vendor Releases

Software Bill of Materials (SBOMs) are no longer optional—they’re essential. By ingesting vendor SBOMs (in SPDX or CycloneDX format), you gain deep insight into every third-party and open-source component. Platforms like BlueVoyant’s Supply Chain Defense now automatically solicit SBOMs from vendors, parse component lists, and cross-reference live vulnerability databases arXiv+6BlueVoyant+6BlueVoyant+6.

Continuous SBOM analysis allows you to:

  • Detect newly disclosed vulnerabilities (including zero-days) in embedded components

  • Enforce patch policies by alerting downstream, dependent teams

  • Document compliance with SBOM mandates like EO 14028, NIS2, DORAriskrecon.com+8BlueVoyant+8Panorays+8AuditBoard

Academic studies highlight both the power and challenges of SBOMs: they dramatically improve visibility and risk prioritization, though accuracy depends on tooling and trust mechanisms BlueVoyant+3arXiv+3arXiv+3.

By integrating SBOM scanning into CI/CD pipelines and TPRM platforms, you gain near-instant risk metrics tied to vendor releases—no manual sharing or delays.

B. Telemetry & Vendor Hygiene Ratings

SBOM gives you what’s there—telemetry tells you what’s happening. Vendors exhibit patterns: patching behavior, certificate rotation, service uptime, internet configuration. SecurityScorecard, Bitsight, and RiskRecon continuously track hundreds of external signals—open ports, cert lifecycles, leaked credentials, dark-web activity—to generate objective hygiene scores arXiv+7Bitsight+7BlueVoyant+7.

By feeding these scores into your TPRM workflow, you can:

  • Rank vendors by real-time risk posture

  • Trigger assessments or alerts when hygiene drops beyond set thresholds

  • Compare cohorts of vendors to prioritize remediation

Third-party risk intelligence isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity. As CyberSaint’s blog explains: “True TPRI gives you dynamic, contextualized insight into which third parties matter most, why they’re risky, and how that risk evolves”BlueVoyant+3cybersaint.io+3AuditBoard+3.

C. Contract & SLA Enforcement: Automated Triggers

Contracts and SLAs are the foundation—but obsolete if not digitally enforced. What if your systems could trigger compliance actions automatically?

  • Contract clauses tied to SBOM disclosure frequency, patch cycles, or signal scores

  • Automated notices when vendor security ratings dip or new vulnerabilities appear

  • Escalation workflows for missing SBOMs, low hygiene ratings, or SLA breaches

Venminder and ProcessUnity offer SLA management modules that integrate risk signals and automate vendor notifications Reflectiz+1Bitsight+1. By codifying SLA-negotiated penalties (e.g., credits, remediation timelines) you gain leverage—backed by data, not inference.

For maximum effect, integrate enforcement into GRC platforms: low scores trigger risk team involvement, legal drafts automatic reminders, remediation status migrates into the vendor dossier.

D. Dashboarding & Alerts: Risk Thresholds

Data is meaningless unless visualized and actioned. Create dashboards that blend:

  • SBOM vulnerability counts by vendor/product

  • Vendor hygiene ratings, benchmarks, changes over time

  • Contract compliance indicators: SBOM delivered on time? SLAs met?

  • Incident and breach telemetry

Thresholds define risk states. Alerts trigger when:

  • New CVEs appear in vendor code

  • Hygiene scores fall sharply

  • Contracts are breached

Platforms like Mitratech and SecurityScorecard centralize these signals into unified risk registers—complete with automated playbooks SecurityScorecardMitratech. This transforms raw alerts into structured workflows.

Dashboards should display:

  • Risk heatmaps by vendor tier

  • Active incidents and required follow-ups

  • Age of SBOMs, patch status, and SLAs by vendor

Visual indicators let risk owners triage immediately—before an alert turns into a breach.

Implementation: Build the Dialogue

How do you go from theory to practice? It starts with collaboration—and automation.

Tool Setup

Begin by integrating SBOM ingestion and vulnerability scanning into your TPRM toolchain. Work with vendors to include SBOMs in release pipelines. Next, onboard security-rating providers—SecurityScorecard, Bitsight, etc.—via APIs. Map contract clauses to data feeds: SBOM frequency, patch turnaround, rating thresholds.

Finally, build workflows:

  • Data ingestion: SBOMs, telemetry scores, breach signals

  • Risk correlation: combine signals per vendor

  • Automated triage: alerts route to risk teams when threshold is breached

  • Enforcement: contract notifications, vendor outreach, escalations

Alert Triage Flows

A vendor’s hygiene score drops by 20%? Here’s the flow:

  1. Automated alert flags vendor; dashboard marks “at-risk.”

  2. Risk team reviews dashboard, finds increase in certificate expiry and open ports.

  3. Triage call with Vendor Ops; request remediation plan with 48-hour resolution SLA.

  4. Log call and remediation deadline in GRC.

  5. If unresolved by SLA cutoff, escalate to legal and trigger contract clause (e.g., discount, audit provisioning).

For vulnerabilities in SBOM components:

  1. New CVE appears in vendor’s latest SBOM.

  2. Automated notification to vendor, requesting patch timeline.

  3. Pass SBOM and remediation deadline into tracking system.

  4. Once patch is delivered, scan again and confirm resolution.

By automating as much of this as possible, you dramatically shorten mean time to response—and remove manual bottlenecks.

Breach Coordination Playbooks

If a vendor breach occurs:

  1. Risk platform alerts detection (e.g., breach flagged by telemetry provider).

  2. Initiate incident coordination: vendor-led investigation, containment, ATO review.

  3. Use standard playbooks: vendor notification, internal stakeholder actions, regulatory reporting triggers.

  4. Continually update incident dashboard; sunset workflow after resolution and post-mortem.

This coordination layer ensures your response is structured and auditable—and leverages continuous signals for early detection.

Organizational Dialogue

Success requires cross-functional communication:

  • Procurement must include SLA clauses and SBOM requirements

  • DevSecOps must connect build pipelines and SBOM generation

  • Legal must codify enforcement actions

  • Security ops must monitor alerts and lead triage

  • Vendors must deliver SBOMs, respond to issues, and align with patch SLAs

Continuous risk pipelines thrive when everyone knows their role—and tools reflect it.

Examples & Use Cases

Illustrative Story: A SaaS vendor pushes out a feature update. Their new SBOM reveals a critical library with an unfixed CVE. Automatically, your TPRM pipeline flags the issue, notifies the vendor, and begins SLA-tracked remediation. Within hours, a patch is released, scanned, and approved—preventing a potential breach. That same vendor’s weak TLS config had dropped their security rating; triage triggered remediation before attackers could exploit. With continuous signals and automation baked into the fabric of your TPRM process, you shift from reactive firefighting to proactive defense.

Conclusion

Static audits and old-school vendor scoring simply won’t cut it anymore. Breaches like SolarWinds and MOVEit expose the fractures in point-in-time controls. To protect enterprise ecosystems today, organizations need pipelines that continuously intake SBOMs, telemetry, contract compliance, and breach data—while automating triage, enforcement, and incident orchestration.

The path isn’t easy, but it’s clear: implement SBOM scanning, integrate hygiene telemetry, codify enforcement via SLAs, and visualize risk in real time. When culture, technology, and contracts are aligned, what was once a blind spot becomes a hardened perimeter. In supply chain defense, constant vigilance isn’t optional—it’s mandatory.

More Info, Help, and Questions

MicroSolved is standing by to discuss vendor risk management, automation of security processes, and bleeding-edge security solutions with your team. Simply give us a call at +1.614.351.1237 or drop us a line at info@microsolved.com to leverage our 32+ years of experience for your benefit. 

How to Secure Your SOC’s AI Agents: A Practical Guide to Orchestration and Trust

Posted on by
Reply

Automation Gone Awry: Can We Trust Our AI Agents?

Picture this: it’s 2 AM, and your SOC’s AI triage agent confidently flags a critical vulnerability in your core application stack. It even auto-generates a remediation script to patch the issue. The team—running lean during the night shift—trusts the agent’s output and pushes the change. Moments later, key services go dark. Customers start calling. Revenue grinds to a halt.

AITeamMember

This isn’t science fiction. We’ve seen AI agents in SOCs produce flawed methodologies, hallucinate mitigation steps, or run outdated tools. Bad scripts, incomplete fixes, and overly confident recommendations can create as much risk as the threats they’re meant to contain.

As SOCs lean harder on agentic AI for triage, enrichment, and automation, we face a pressing question: how much trust should we place in these systems, and how do we secure them before they secure us?

Why This Matters Now

SOCs are caught in a perfect storm: rising attack volumes, an acute cybersecurity talent shortage, and ever-tightening budgets. Enter AI agents—promising to scale triage, correlate threat data, enrich findings, and even generate mitigation scripts at machine speed. It’s no wonder so many SOCs are leaning into agentic AI to do more with less.

But there’s a catch. These systems are far from infallible. We’ve already seen agents hallucinate mitigation steps, recommend outdated tools, or produce complex scripts that completely miss the mark. The biggest risk isn’t the AI itself—it’s the temptation to treat its advice as gospel. Too often, overburdened analysts assume “the machine knows best” and push changes without proper validation.

To be clear, AI agents are remarkably capable—far more so than many realize. But even as they grow more autonomous, human vigilance remains critical. The question is: how do we structure our SOCs to safely orchestrate these agents without letting efficiency undermine security?

Securing AI-SOC Orchestration: A Practical Framework

1. Trust Boundaries: Start Low, Build Slowly

Treat your SOC’s AI agents like junior analysts—or interns on their first day. Just because they’re fast and confident doesn’t mean they’re trustworthy. Start with low privileges and limited autonomy, then expand access only as they demonstrate reliability under supervision.

Establish a graduated trust model:

  • New AI use cases should default to read-only or recommendation mode.

  • Require human validation for all changes affecting production systems or critical workflows.

  • Slowly introduce automation only for tasks that are well-understood, extensively tested, and easily reversible.

This isn’t about mistrusting AI—it’s about understanding its limits. Even the most advanced agent can hallucinate or misinterpret context. SOC leaders must create clear orchestration policies defining where automation ends and human oversight begins.

2. Failure Modes: Expect Mistakes, Contain the Blast Radius

AI agents in SOCs can—and will—fail. The question isn’t if, but how badly. Among the most common failure modes:

  • Incorrect or incomplete automation that doesn’t fully mitigate the issue.

  • Buggy or broken code generated by the AI, particularly in complex scripts.

  • Overconfidence in recommendations due to lack of QA or testing pipelines.

To mitigate these risks, design your AI workflows with failure in mind:

  • Sandbox all AI-generated actions before they touch production.

  • Build in human QA gates, where analysts review and approve code, configurations, or remediation steps.

  • Employ ensemble validation, where multiple AI agents (or models) cross-check each other’s outputs to assess trustworthiness and completeness.

  • Adopt the mindset of “assume the AI is wrong until proven otherwise” and enforce risk management controls accordingly.

Fail-safe orchestration isn’t about stopping mistakes—it’s about limiting their scope and catching them before they cause damage.

3. Governance & Monitoring: Watch the Watchers

Securing your SOC’s AI isn’t just about technical controls—it’s about governance. To orchestrate AI agents safely, you need robust oversight mechanisms that hold them accountable:

  • Audit Trails: Log every AI action, decision, and recommendation. If an agent produces bad advice or buggy code, you need the ability to trace it back, understand why it failed, and refine future prompts or models.

  • Escalation Policies: Define clear thresholds for when AI can act autonomously and when it must escalate to a human analyst. Critical applications and high-risk workflows should always require manual intervention.

  • Continuous Monitoring: Use observability tools to monitor AI pipelines in real time. Treat AI agents as living systems—they need to be tuned, updated, and occasionally reined in as they interact with evolving environments.

Governance ensures your AI doesn’t just work—it works within the parameters your SOC defines. In the end, oversight isn’t optional. It’s the foundation of trust.

Harden Your AI-SOC Today: An Implementation Guide

Ready to secure your AI agents? Start here.

✅ Workflow Risk Assessment Checklist

  • Inventory all current AI use cases and map their access levels.

  • Identify workflows where automation touches production systems—flag these as high risk.

  • Review permissions and enforce least privilege for every agent.

✅ Observability Tools for AI Pipelines

  • Deploy monitoring systems that track AI inputs, outputs, and decision paths in real time.

  • Set up alerts for anomalies, such as sudden shifts in recommendations or output patterns.

✅ Tabletop AI-Failure Simulations

  • Run tabletop exercises simulating AI hallucinations, buggy code deployments, and prompt injection attacks.

  • Carefully inspect all AI inputs and outputs during these drills—look for edge cases and unexpected behaviors.

  • Involve your entire SOC team to stress-test oversight processes and escalation paths.

✅ Build a Trust Ladder

  • Treat AI agents as interns: start them with zero trust, then grant privileges only as they prove themselves through validation and rigorous QA.

  • Beware the sunk cost fallacy. If an agent consistently fails to deliver safe, reliable outcomes, pull the plug. It’s better to lose automation than compromise your environment.

Securing your AI isn’t about slowing down innovation—it’s about building the foundations to scale safely.

Failures and Fixes: Lessons from the Field

Failures

  • Naïve Legacy Protocol Removal: An AI-based remediation agent identifies insecure Telnet usage and “remediates” it by deleting the Telnet reference but ignores dependencies across the codebase—breaking upstream systems and halting deployments.

  • Buggy AI-Generated Scripts: A code-assist AI generates remediation code for a complex vulnerability. When executed untested, the script crashes services and exposes insecure configurations.

Successes

  • Rapid Investigation Acceleration: One enterprise SOC introduced agentic workflows that automated repetitive tasks like data gathering and correlation. Investigations that once took 30 minutes now complete in under 5 minutes, with increased analyst confidence.

  • Intelligent Response at Scale: A global security team deployed AI-assisted systems that provided high-quality recommendations and significantly reduced time-to-response during active incidents.

Final Thoughts: Orchestrate With Caution, Scale With Confidence

AI agents are here to stay, and their potential in SOCs is undeniable. But trust in these systems isn’t a given—it’s earned. With careful orchestration, robust governance, and relentless vigilance, you can build an AI-enabled SOC that augments your team without introducing new risks.

In the end, securing your AI agents isn’t about holding them back. It’s about giving them the guardrails they need to scale your defenses safely.

For more info and help, contact MicroSolved, Inc. 

We’ve been working with SOCs and automation for several years, including AI solutions. Call +1.614.351.1237 or send us a message at info@microsolved.com for a stress-free discussion of our capabilities and your needs. 

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Zero-Trust API Security: Bridging the Gaps in a Fragmented Landscape

Posted on by
Reply

It feels like every security product today is quick to slap on a “zero-trust” label, especially when it comes to APIs. But as we dig deeper, we keep encountering a sobering reality: despite all the buzzwords, many “zero-trust” API security stacks are hollow at the core. They authenticate traffic, sure. But visibility? Context? Real-time policy enforcement? Not so much.

APISecurity

We’re in the middle of a shift—from token-based perimeter defenses to truly identity- and context-aware interactions. Our recent research highlights where most of our current stacks fall apart, and where the industry is hustling to catch up.

1. The Blind Spots We Don’t Talk About

APIs have become the connective tissue of modern enterprise architectures. Unfortunately, nearly 50% of these interfaces are expected to be operating outside any formal gateway by 2025. That means shadow, zombie, and rogue APIs are living undetected in production environments—unrouted, uninspected, unmanaged.

Traditional gateways only see what they route. Anything else—misconfigured dev endpoints, forgotten staging interfaces—falls off the radar. And once they’re forgotten, they’re defenseless.

2. Static Secrets Are Not Machine Identity

Another gaping hole: how we handle machine identities. The zero-trust principle says, “never trust, always verify,” yet most API clients still rely on long-lived secrets and certificates. These are hard to track, rotate, or revoke—leaving wide-open attack windows.

Machine identities now outnumber human users 45 to 1. That’s a staggering ratio, and without dynamic credentials and automated lifecycle controls, it’s a recipe for disaster. Short-lived tokens, mutual TLS, identity-bound proxies—these aren’t future nice-to-haves. They’re table stakes.

3. Context-Poor Enforcement

The next hurdle is enforcement that’s blind to context. Most Web Application and API Protection (WAAP) layers base their decisions on IPs, static tokens, and request rates. That won’t cut it anymore.

Business logic abuse, like BOLA (Broken Object Level Authorization) and GraphQL aliasing, often appears totally legit to traditional defenses. We need analytics that understand the data, the user, the behavior—and can tell the difference between a normal batch query and a cleverly disguised scraping attack.

4. Authorization: Still Too Coarse

Least privilege isn’t just a catchphrase. It’s a mandate. Yet most authorization today is still role-based, and roles tend to explode in complexity. RBAC becomes unmanageable, leading to users with far more access than they need.

Fine-grained, policy-as-code models using tools like OPA (Open Policy Agent) or Cedar are starting to make a difference. But externalizing that logic—making it reusable and auditable—is still rare.

5. The Lifecycle Is Still a Siloed Mess

Security can’t be a bolt-on at runtime. Yet today, API security tools are spread across design, test, deploy, and incident response, with weak integrations and brittle handoffs. That gap means misconfigurations persist and security debt accumulates.

The modern goal should be lifecycle integration: shift-left with CI/CD-aware fuzzing, shift-right with real-time feedback loops. A living, breathing security pipeline.

The Path Forward: What the New Guard Looks Like

Here’s where some vendors are stepping up:

  • API Discovery: Real-time inventories from tools like Noname and Salt Illuminate.

  • Machine Identity: Dynamic credentials from Corsha and Venafi.

  • Runtime Context: Behavior analytics engines by Traceable and Salt.

  • Fine-Grained Authorization: Centralized policy with Amazon Verified Permissions and Permify.

  • Lifecycle Integration: Fuzzing and feedback via CI/CD from Salt and Traceable.

If you’re rebuilding your API security stack, this is your north star.

Final Thoughts

Zero-trust for APIs isn’t about more tokens or tighter gateways. It’s about building a system where every interaction is validated, every machine has a verifiable identity, and every access request is contextually and precisely authorized. We’re not quite there yet, but the map is emerging.

Security pros, it’s time to rethink our assumptions. Forget the checkboxes. Focus on visibility, identity, context, and policy. Because in this new world, trust isn’t just earned—it’s continuously verified.

For help or to discuss modern approaches, give MicroSolved, Inc. a call (+1.614.351.1237) or drop us a line (info@microsolved.com). We’ll be happy to see how our capabilities align with your initiatives. 

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.