This post is based on the excellent mindmap posted on taosecurity.blogspot.com – detailing the different fields of cybersecurity. The author (Richard) said he was not really comfortable with the risk assessment portion. I have tried to change the presentation of that portion – into the more standard thinking about risk stemming from ISO 31000 rather than security tradition.
Read team and blue team activities are presented under penetration testing in the original mind map. I agree that the presentation there is a bit off – red team is about pentesting, whereas blue team is the defensive side. In normal risk management lingo, these terms aren’t that common – which is why I left them out of the mind map for risk assessment. For an excellent discussion on these terms, see this post by Daniel Miessler: https://danielmiessler.com/study/red-blue-purple-teams/#gs.aVhyZis.
The map shown here breaks down the risk assessment process into the following containers:
- Context description
- Risk identification
- Risk analysis
- Treatment planning
There are of course many links between other security related activities and risk assessments. Risk monitoring and communication processes are connecting these dots.
Also threat intelligence is essential for understanding the context – which again dictates attack scenarios and credibility necessary to prioritize risks. Threat intelligence entails many activities, as indicated by the original mind map. One source of intel from ops that is missing on that map by the way, is threat hunting. That also ties into risk identification.
I have also singled out security ops as it is essential for risk monitoring. This is required on the tactical level to evaluate whether risk treatments are effective.
Further, “scorecards” have been used as a name for strategic management here – and integration in strategic management and governance is necessary to ensure effective risk management – and involving the right parts of the organization.