Article

Turning GDPR Obligations into a Privacy Management System with ISO 27701

Article / February 4, 2026

Turning GDPR Obligations into a Privacy Management System with ISO 27701

The GDPR already specifies obligations for organisations processing personal data. In most instances, these obligations are well understood and already present within organisational policies, privacy notices, and legal interpretations. The problem arises when these obligations need to be fulfilled consistently across the organisation. 
Privacy obligations are spread across legal, security, engineering, and business groups, with each working with different priorities and decision-making models. Without a common operating model, privacy work relies very heavily on individual judgment rather than process-driven approaches. This creates inconsistency in execution.
Product teams view privacy as a delivery obstacle, legal teams view it as residual risk, and the security team,  as a risk management activity. This leads to compliance work being done in a reactive manner during audits and incidents, rather than being integrated into day-to-day activities.
This problem cannot be solved by simply creating more documentation or legal analysis. A common operating model is needed that translates regulatory obligations into a clear ownership, process, and review framework.
That is where ISO 27701 comes into play.

Treat Privacy Like a Management System

Sustainable GDPR compliance requires a shift in approach. The question is not whether obligations are understood, but whether they are embedded into how the organisation operates, especially when organisations stop asking, “Are we compliant?” and start asking, “How do we manage privacy day to day?”.
Otherwise, if GDPR is handled only through legal interpretation and ad-hoc controls, it will always continue to feel heavy. And this is whereISO 27701 becomes useful.
Its value does not lie in restating GDPR requirements. Most organisations already possess that knowledge. Its value lies in turning obligations into defined processes, ownership, and review cycles. It provides structure where GDPR is abstract.
Importantly, ISO 27701 does not have the intention of existing in isolation. This standard extends ISO 27001 and inserts privacy into the already present risk and security processes.  It helps in reducing ambiguity and makes use of sound judgment instead of reactive and ad-hoc practices.
The aim, rather, is not formal certification. The aim is consistency and control.

Step 1: Translate GDPR Articles into Operational Control Areas

Now GDPR is drafted in legal terms, whereas operational teams require actionable controls.
The first step is therefore decomposition. GDPR obligations must be translated into operational domains that align with how organisations actually function. Rather than focusing on individual articles, organisations should focus on the activities that those articles regulate.

When considered in terms of practice, GDPR requirements usually tend to fall under the following control areas:
– Governance and accountability
– Personal data lifecycle management
– Privacy risk assessment and DPIAs
– Third-party and supplier oversight
– Data subject rights handling

This translation is essential. It establishes a shared operational language and removes dependence on individual interpretation, making privacy decisions structured and not discretionary.

Step 2: Embed ISO 27701 into Existing ISMS and Business Processes

A common implementation error is the creation of standalone privacy programs. This approach introduces parallel processes, increases overhead, and leads to resistance.
WhereasISO 27701 is designed to be embedded.

Where an organisation already maintains an ISMS or similar governance structure, privacy controls should be integrated into existing mechanisms, such as:
  • – Risk management processes should explicitly include privacy risks
  • – Change management should assess personal data impact where relevant
  • – Supplier onboarding should incorporate privacy due diligence by default
  • – Incident response should consider personal data impact as standard practice

     

Embedding privacy in this manner ensures that it becomes part of routine operations rather than an additional compliance layer.

Step 3: Define Roles, Artefacts, and Decision Flows

Operational failure within GDPR programs is frequently linked to unclear ownership.
 
But in the case of ISO 27701, it requires an explicit role definition. At a minimum, organisations must clearly establish:
 
  • Accountability for privacy governance
  • – Ownership of systems processing personal data
  • – Responsibility for DPIA initiation and approval
  • – Authority for risk acceptance
  • – Ownership of data subject request handling

 
Supporting these roles are a limited number of essential artefacts:
  • – Records of processing activities
  • – DPIA documentation and outcomes
  • – Supplier privacy assessments
  • – Internal privacy guidance and notices
 
Just as important are decision workflows. Organisations must also establish criteria under which factors such as how privacy reviews are triggered, how decisions are made, and how they are stored, are considered. This ends reliance on manual escalation mechanisms and human judgment.

Step 4: Make GDPR Measurable and Reviewable

Privacy controls that are not reviewed degrade over time.
ISO 27701 introduces the discipline of measurement without imposing excessive reporting requirements. The focus is on demonstrable control, not metrics for their own sake.
Organisations should be able to evidence, with confidence:
  • – DPIAs are conducted where required
  • – Third parties are periodically reviewed
  • – Privacy incidents are logged and analysed
  • – Controls are reviewed, monitored, and updated

     

Management review is central to this process. Privacy performance should be assessed alongside other governance domains, enabling leadership-level assurance based on evidence rather than assumption.
This is where executive assurance comes from. Not from documents, but from evidence of control.

Challenges and How to Overcome Them?

The primary challenge in implementation is perception. ISO 27701 is often viewed as an administrative burden.
 
This risk materialises only when implementation prioritises documentation over decision support. Effective programs apply restraint, focusing on controls that actively support operational decisions.
 
The secondary challenge is the potential for misalignment of the legal, security, and business functions. The advantage of ISO 27701 is that it has a framework that aligns the different participants, such as the legal sector and the business sector, on the process rather than on the interpretation of the process
 
When implemented pragmatically, the framework reduces reactive effort rather than increasing oversight

From Compliance Burden to Privacy Operating Model

GDPR was not designed to be sustained through isolated controls and periodic remediation.
ISO 27701 enables organisations to establish privacy as a managed capability, supported by defined processes, ownership, and review mechanisms. When applied as a management system rather than a certification exercise, it delivers predictability, resilience, and scalability.
At that point, GDPR compliance transitions from a recurring concern to a stable operating condition.

GDPR Compliance for Non‑EU SaaS Providers: A Practical Playbook

Article / February 4, 2026

GDPR Compliance for Non‑EU SaaS Providers:
A Practical Playbook

Why do non-EU SaaS providers underestimate GDPR applicability and struggle to operationalise compliance?

Non-EU SaaS companies often assume that GDPR is a “European issue” — something to worry about only if they have offices, employees, or servers in the EU. That assumption is the core problem.
 
GDPR affects you depending on whom you serve, and not where you’re based as a company.” If your SaaS offering targets, tracks, or serves residents of the European Union—even if it’s only incidentally—you are bound by the GDPR regardless of whether you’re outside of the EU. Many non-European SaaS companies understand this only when a customer demands a Data Processing Agreement or when a regulatory notice arrives in the mailbox or when a business agreement fails to roll in as a result of a deficiency in compliance.
 
The hard part isn’t understanding GDPR’s relevance. What’s tough is implementing GDPR in a manner that works for a SaaS business without overengineering, panic-compliant, checkbox theater. Non-EU SaaS companies need a scalable solution that allows them to meet GDPR expectations without stopping their product development.

Adopting a risk-based, operational approach to GDPR rather than treating it as a legal checklist.

This is not achieved by “implementing GDPR” as an exercise in putting pen to paper, standing alone from other business processes. Such an approach normally results in documentation heavy on policy, unclear in ownership, and light on controls that cannot survive growth or audit.
 
Instead, GDPR compliance for non-EU SaaS providers should be handled as a risk-based operating model:

 

– Understand why GDPR would apply to your SaaS.
– Identify where personal data actually flows across your product and organisation.
– Translation of GDPR obligations to concrete product, engineering, security, and operational controls
– Assign ownership and decision-making.
– Prove compliance through evidence, not promises.

 

The GDPR will be treated in this playbook as an ongoing set of operational responsibilities, rather than simply attaining a point-in-time certification. In this paper, the focus is on building defensible and auditable compliance that both customers and regulators can trust.

Practical actions to translate GDPR obligations into scalable SaaS controls and processes

1. Confirm GDPR Applicability — Precisely, Not Vaguely
 
Start by answering three questions honestly:
 
  • – Do EU residents use the service?
  • – Does the product intentionally target EU users (language, pricing, marketing, availability)?
  • – Does the product monitor behaviour (analytics, profiling, usage tracking)?
 
If the answer to any is yes, then GDPR applies. Avoid debating edge cases. Regulators look at substance, not legal gymnastics.
 
2. Define Your GDPR Role: Controller, Processor, or Both
 
Most SaaS providers act as:
 
  1. – Processors for customer data (handling end-user data on behalf of clients)
  2. – Controllers for their own data (users, admins, employees, marketing leads)
 
This distinction matters. It drives:
 
  1. – Contract obligations (DPAs)
  2. – Technical responsibilities
  3. – Response handling for data subject rights
  4. – Document this role clearly. Many SaaS failures start with role confusion.
 
  1. 3. Map Personal Data Flows Across the SaaS Stack
 
Create a practical data flow map covering:
 
  • – Data collected through the product
  • – Authentication and identity systems
  • – Logs, telemetry, and analytics
  • – Customer support tools
  • – Third-party integrations and subprocessors
  • – Cross-border data transfers
 
This does not need to be artwork. It needs to be accurate. If engineering disagrees with compliance, engineering wins — then compliance adapts.
 
  1. 4. Establish Lawful Bases That Match Reality
 
  • – Assign lawful bases only where they actually apply:
  • – Contract: core service delivery
  • – Legitimate interest: security, fraud prevention, internal analytics (with balancing)
  • – Consent: marketing, optional tracking, non-essential features
  • – Avoid defaulting everything to consent. That creates obligations you cannot operationally sustain.
 
  1. 5. Build Privacy into Product and Engineering Decisions
 
Privacy by design is not a slogan. For SaaS, it means:
 
  • – Minimising default data collection
  • – Clear data retention rules per data category
  • – Logical separation of customer data
  • – Access controls aligned with roles, not convenience
  • – Audit logs for administrative actions
 
These controls reduce GDPR risk while improving overall product discipline.


  1. 6. Implement Data Subject Rights Handling That Actually Works
 
You need a repeatable process for:
 
  • – Access requests
  • – Deletion requests
  • – Rectification
  • – Restriction and objection handling
 
This includes:
 
  1. a. Identity verification
  2. b. Internal ownership (legal vs engineering vs support)
  3. c. Response timelines
  4. d. Evidence retention
 
Manual chaos does not scale. Tooling helps, but process clarity matters more.


  1. 7. Formalise Vendor and Subprocessor Governance
 
Non-EU SaaS providers often rely heavily on cloud and tooling ecosystems. GDPR expects:
 
  • – Documented vendor risk assessments
  • – Subprocessor transparency
  • – Contractual safeguards
  • – Transfer mechanisms (SCCs, TIA where required)
 
Customers will ask for this. Regulators will expect it. Prepare once, reuse often.


  1. 8. Appoint GDPR Accountability Roles
 
You may not need a full-time DPO, but you do need:
 
  • – A clear privacy owner
  • – Defined escalation paths
  • – Executive visibility
 
Accountability gaps are a red flag during audits and enterprise due diligence.


  1. 9. Prepare for Breaches Before They Happen
 
  • – Incident response should already exist. GDPR adds:
  • – Personal data impact assessment
  • – 72-hour notification capability
  • – Customer communication workflows
 
Test this through tabletop exercises. A breach is not the time to read the policy.


  1. 10. Maintain Evidence, Not Just Intent
 
GDPR compliance lives in:
 
  • – Logs
  • – Records of processing
  • – Training records
  • – Risk assessments
  • – DPIAs where applicable
 
If you cannot show it, it did not happen.

Challenges and How to Address Them?

We’re a startup — this feels heavy
The challenge is scale anxiety. The solution is proportionality. GDPR allows risk-based implementation. Focus first on high-impact data and flows.
 
“We are not a startup, but are small and handle very limited personal data.”
This problem tends to occur in organizations that are lean, product-oriented, or handle limited amounts of personal data. The implication is that the expectations of the GDPR will automatically decrease as the size of the organization or the amount of data shrinks.
 
The problem is that the GDPR is proportional to risk, not size. The answer is still proportionality. Organizations with smaller data footprints need fewer controls, not different principles.
 
Engineering resistance to privacy controls.
This often comes from unclear requirements. Translate GDPR obligations into engineering-friendly acceptance criteria. Privacy improves architecture when done properly.
 
Customer-driven compliance whiplash.
Different customers demand different things. Anchor your program to GDPR fundamentals, not individual questionnaires. A strong baseline answers most demands.
 
Cross-border transfer uncertainty.
Regulatory noise creates confusion. The fix is documentation and consistency. Use recognised transfer mechanisms and keep assessments current.
 
Treating GDPR as legal paperwork.
This is the most common failure. GDPR is operational governance, not policy decoration. Shift ownership beyond legal early.

Key takeaways on building defensible, sustainable GDPR compliance for global SaaS businesses.

GDPR compliance for non-EU SaaS providers is not about geography. It is about accountability.
 
Companies that struggle with GDPR usually try to outsource thinking. They buy templates, sign DPAs, publish policies — but do not change how data is actually handled. That approach collapses under customer scrutiny and regulatory pressure.
 
A practical GDPR playbook focuses on reality:
 
  1. 1. How does data flow?
  2. 2. Who controls it?
  3. 3. Why is it processed?
  4. 4. How is risk managed over time?
 
When GDPR is treated as an operating discipline rather than a legal hurdle, it becomes manageable — and often beneficial. Strong privacy practices build customer trust, simplify enterprise sales, and reduce operational surprises.
 
For non-EU SaaS providers, the goal is not to become European. The goal is to become defensible, transparent, and responsible in how personal data is handled. That is what GDPR ultimately demands.


Designing a Unified Control Set for ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Without Duplicate Effort

Article / February 4, 2026

Designing a Unified Control Set for ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Without Duplicate Effort

Once an organization begins preparing for SOC 2 after completing ISO 27001, one thing becomes clear very quickly: most of the work already exists, but it cannot be used in the way the SOC 2 audit requires.

Policies are in place. Processes are running. Controls are documented. Yet teams still end up rewriting procedures, remodelling controls, and recreating evidence trails that appear almost identical to what already exists. The issue is not a lack of controls, but a misalignment in how those controls were originally designed.
Both ISO 27001 and SOC 2 focus on securing the organization, but they approach it from slightly different dimensions. When controls are designed with both frameworks in mind from the beginning, a significant portion of the requirements can be satisfied without duplicating effort or getting lost in unnecessary documentation.

Why ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Overlap So Much

ISO 27001 is centred on structured risk management and the establishment of information security controls. SOC 2, on the other hand, evaluates whether those controls actually operate effectively over a defined period, using the Trust Services Criteria as the measurement lens.
 
Although the audits may appear different, they examine the same core operational areas, including: 
  1. – Access control
  2. – Change management
  3. – Incident response
  4. – Risk assessment
  5. – Third-party and vendor management
  6. – Ongoing monitoring and periodic reviews

Duplication begins when teams treat these as separate framework requirements rather than shared operational responsibilities that already exist within the business. Controls are rewritten simply to satisfy checklists instead of reflecting how work is actually performed. This is where unnecessary effort and inefficiency are introduced.

Designing Controls Around Operational Reality

Effective control design is driven by operations, not by compliance interpretation. Rather than starting with Annex A or the Trust Services Criteria, better outcomes are achieved by answering practical questions such as how access requests are approved, reviewed, and revoked in practice.
Similarly, clarity is needed on how changes move from request to production, how security incidents are detected, escalated, and resolved, and how vendors are evaluated before onboarding and monitored afterwards.
Controls that mirror real workflows are easier to execute, easier to evidence, and easier to maintain. They also map more naturally to multiple frameworks. In contrast, controls written solely for certification purposes tend to be abstract and difficult to sustain outside of audit cycles.

One Control Set for Multiple Frameworks

A common misconception is that ISO 27001 and SOC 2 require fundamentally different controls for the same domains. In reality, they usually require the same controls, assessed from different assurance perspectives.
Access management illustrates this well. ISO 27001 emphasises least privilege, access policies, periodic reviews, and alignment with risk. SOC 2 focuses on authorisation, traceability, and consistent performance during the audit period. A single access control that includes role-based provisioning, documented approvals, periodic reviews, and retained evidence satisfies both frameworks without modification.
The objective is not to create framework-specific controls, but to build controls that are strong enough to withstand different types of scrutiny.

Getting Control Granularity Right

Lack of control detail causes ineffectiveness. Too broad control details create difficult auditing and possible interpretative gaps. Overly detailed control also results in process brittleness.
Well-structured controls make it easy to determine what is being done, what is accountable, what is performed, and what is provided as evidence. This level of clarity aligns with both ISO 27001 Annex A and SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria. There is no unnecessary complexity added in this regard.

Using Framework-Neutral Control Language

Control descriptions should explain how activities are performed, not reference specific standards. Including phrases such as “to comply with ISO 27001” or “to comply with SOC 2” limits reuse and complicates future compliance efforts, such as ISO 27701, customer security reviews, or regulatory audits.
Framework mapping should remain a separate exercise performed during audit preparation and reporting. Controls themselves should remain framework-neutral and execution-focused.

Designing Controls With Evidence in Mind

A key element of the SOC 2 audit is the heavy stress on consistent evidence. Informally performed confirmatory controls, like those acceptable for ISO 27001 certification, would fail the test when subjected to an SOC 2 audit.
Effective controls produce evidence as a natural byproduct, such as system logs, application logs, review of access, change management tickets, incident response, vendor risk assessments, which are required because if evidence had to be rebuilt to satisfy an audit, this points to a poorly designed control process.

A Single Risk Register for Both Frameworks

A separate risk register for ISO 27001 and SOC 2 is unnecessary. Both standards are geared towards the identification and treatment of risks relating to information and system reliability.
A properly maintained risk register could, in fact, serve both purposes if it has sufficiently identified risks and assigned responsibility and authority, documented their treatment, and linked risks to their controls. What matters to auditors is not how many registers there are but how risks are managed.

Assigning Control Ownership to Functions

Controls should be the property of operating units and not the framework of the compliance program. When controls are identified as “ISO controls” or “SOC 2 controls”, and it is not clear to which group or department they belong to—that is, to IT/Security/Engineering/HR or the control’s “owners”—the controls are embedded in the day-to-day business.
Clearer ownership enables more consistency and, directly, more favourable audit results in respect to both frameworks.

Validating Control Mapping

Effective control design doesn’t have reliance on forced mappings against ISO 27001 Annexe A and the SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria. Well-designed controls align readily with a number of requirements within both. Moreover, there is a possibility that a number of requirements in SOC 2 overlap.
The use of complex or tenuous mappings is frequently indicative of a fragmented control design or a problem with documentation. If the control design is good, it is easy to make a mapping, and the process is essentially verification.

Conclusion: Reducing Compliance Effort Through Better Control Design

Structure and governance are assessed by ISO 27001.

SOC 2 assesses execution and consistency over time.

Both frameworks can be addressed without duplication when controls are created once, used consistently, and demonstrated organically.
ISO 27001 and SOC 2 do not inherently require duplicate effort. It is a sign that controls were not operationally grounded when they were designed.
In addition to lowering compliance overhead, a unified control set that is owned by the appropriate teams and matched to actual workflows improves security posture and audit readiness.

Maintaining several control libraries is not necessary for mature compliance. It is about creating a single control system that functions regardless of the framework used.

Who is Data Controller?

Article / December 7, 2023

Who is Data Controller?

In an era dominated by digital interactions, understanding the pivotal role of a Data Controller is essential to ensuring the privacy and security of personal data. This comprehensive exploration delves into the intricacies of data controllership, elucidating its importance, the regulatory landscape, and the responsibilities it entails, particularly under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Defining the Data Controller

At its core, a Data Controller is the entity – whether a company or an individual – bestowed with the authority to dictate the fate of personal data. While in many countries, the data “possessor” is the entity that collected it, the European Union extends this role to government agencies or other entities.

Deciphering Data Controller Responsibilities

Beyond mere data collection, a data controller, often the website owner or manager, is the architect of decisions regarding how and why data is utilized. For any entity with a website, GDPR compliance is imperative, involving specific steps to adhere to new regulations, especially those mandated by the EU.

Understanding Data Controller Status

Being a data controller means being the arbiter of ‘why’ and ‘how’ data is processed. This responsibility places the individual or organization under the umbrella of GDPR compliance, mandating the assurance that all processed data is adequate, accurate, timely, and secure.

Obligations of Data Controllers

The obligations of data controllers extend to meticulously fulfilling GDPR requirements. This includes the need for individual controllers to collaborate on specific obligations, with each controller being individually responsible for overall GDPR compliance. It is crucial to understand the obligations in detail to avoid non-compliances and thus major penalties. A good approach to avoid such risks is to engage a professional firm that specializes in IT management consulting services.

Joint Data Controllership: A Complex Nexus

According to Article 26 of the GDPR, when multiple parties jointly determine the purpose and means of data processing, they become joint data controllers. Despite the brevity of the clauses in Articles 30 and 36, the concept of joint controllership has stirred considerable debate and uncertainty within organizations.

Are You a Joint Controller? A Checklist

Determining joint controllership involves assessing shared objectives, common processing purposes, shared datasets, collaborative process design, and adherence to common information management rules. This checklist aids in evaluating joint controllership status.

Navigating Dual Roles: Data Controller and Data Processor

An entity can wear multiple hats, acting as a data controller, a data processor, or both. For instance, an analytics provider processing a customer’s data becomes a processor, while determining the use of additional datasets makes them a controller.

Determining Your Role: Controller, Processor, or Joint Controllers

Deciphering your role is crucial for fulfilling GDPR obligations. The distinction between controller, processor, or joint controllers guides organizations in understanding their responsibilities in data processing activities.

Data Controller Checklist

  1. Necessity for Data Processing:
    • Clearly articulate the necessity for collecting and processing personal data.
    • Align data processing purposes with the organization’s legitimate interests or lawful bases.
  2. Decision-Making Authority:
    • Identify the authority determining ‘why’ and ‘how’ data should be processed.
    • Ensure active control over key decisions related to data processing.
  3. Commercial Benefit:
    • Assess whether there is a commercial benefit derived from processing personal data.
    • Clarify any payments for services received from another data controller.
  4. Data Subjects:
    • Identify individuals for whom personal data is processed.
    • Confirm a direct relationship between the organization and data subjects.
  5. Decision-Making Criteria:
    • Document criteria for selecting individuals from whom personal data is collected.
    • Demonstrate professional judgment in processing personal data.
  6. Data Processing Power:
    • Verify complete control over how data is processed.
    • Authorize processors to process personal data on behalf of the organization.
  7. Contractual Relationships:
    • Evaluate if personal data processing results from a contract between the organization and data subjects.
    • Clarify contractual agreements with third-party processors.
  8. Employees as Data Subjects:
    • Confirm if the organization processes personal data of its employees.
    • Ensure compliance with data protection principles for employee data.
  9. Involvement in Data Collection:
    • Confirm active participation in decisions about what personal data to collect.
    • Ensure a role in selecting individuals from whom data is collected.
  10. Authorizing Processors:
    • Ensure authorization of processors to process personal data.
    • Establish documented agreements with processors.

In conclusion, data controllership is not merely a role but a profound responsibility. Comprehending and adhering to rules, maintaining accountability, and adapting to emerging challenges are paramount in shaping a secure and private digital future. Data controllers, as custodians of personal information, play a pivotal role in constructing a trustworthy and resilient digital landscape.

ISO and OSI model: How Does ISMS Protect OSI Model From Cyber Threats?

Article, Uncategorized / December 11, 2023

ISO and OSI model: How Does ISMS Protect OSI Model From The Cyber Threats?

Cyber threats can occur at any layer of the OSI Model, starting from the Physical Layer to the Application Layer. If you want to know about the functions of the OSI Layers, click here.
In this article, you will see the common threats which may occur in each layer of the OSI Model. You will also learn how Information Security Management systems (ISMS) or ISO/IEC 27001:2013 and ISO/IEC 27002:2022 standards provide the solution to secure OSI Layers.

Examples of Cyber Threat at OSI Layers

1. Application Layer

Solution Provides By ISMS

2. Presentation Layer

Solution Provides By ISMS

3. Session Layer

Solution Provides By ISMS

4. Transport Layer

Solution Provides By ISMS

5. Network Layer

Solution Provides By ISMS

6. Data Link Layer

Solution Provides By ISMS

7. Physical Layer

Solution Provides By ISMS

Conclusion

You can realise how an Information Security Management System (ISMS) plays an important role to secure all the layers of the OSI Model.
An organization can also secure its environment by implementing an ISMS. We are one of the leading professional firms that can assist you in your journey to establishing your customized ISMS. Contact us to know more about our IT Management consulting services.

Smart Cybersecurity Budgeting: Part 2

Article / November 26, 2024

Smart Cybersecurity Budgeting Strategies for CISOs

Cybersecurity has evolved into a much more critical and risk-bound than ever before. With the business organizations around the world embracing DIGITAL Transformation with data and information encompassing the core of any business, security and privacy have followed the suit. Any breach or leak of such critical information and data can severely damage organization operations, reputation, and management.

What is the role of a CISO In cybersecurity Budgeting?

Cyber budgeting and implementation play an essential role in business budgeting. Every business organization has its operational requirements according to its scale and range of operation. In today’s Budget discussions apart from digital transformation and business continuity, the smart Cybersecurity budgeting strategies has gained a lot of significance because of its sensitive nature and crippling effects on an organization. A Chief information security officer along with the cybersecurity team in an organization should work out a well-organized report to convince the c suite to share out adequate investment in cybersecurity. Therefore, CISO plays an important role in mitigating the cyber risks of an organization. The two primary steps that should be taken before formulating a cybersecurity budget are: 

Cybersecurity Assessments

The cybersecurity assessments help the IT Heads and Digital Managers to perceive the cybersecurity capability and resilience of an organization. These assessments use various tools to detect the weak spots in the organization’s IT and security infrastructure which enables to choose effective cybersecurity investments. Risk assessments are done using standard tools which are based on best practices in the industry. These tools analyze the impact of the risks on various domains which include security policies, compliance, asset management, operations security, supplier relationships and other key areas. Some best standard frameworks include NIST, Cyber essentials, etc.

Strategy and Roadmap

Another important step in Cyber budgeting is a comprehensive strategy and road map to effectively utilize the cybersecurity investment and mitigate the risk. Once the assessment is complete, CISO and cybersecurity teams should choose a better strategy that ties all the business goals i.e understanding the costs of a potential breach and how much risk the organization is willing to tolerate, identifying the “crown jewels,” etc. factors which influence these strategies are lack of visibility, lack of control, overcomplexity, lack of personnel resources and others. Therefore, A CISO connects these dots in tying the risk mitigation roadmap into actual benefits.

Some data points on cybersecurity budgeting

  • Security services accounted for an estimated 50% of cybersecurity budgets in 2020. (Gartner)

  • The total cost of cybercrime for each company increased by 12% from $11.7 million in 2017 to $13.0 million in 2018. (Accenture)

  • The average annual security spending per employee increased from $2,337 in 2019 to $2,691 in 2020. (Deloitte)

  • 50% of large enterprises (with over 10,000 employees) are spending $1 million or more annually on security, with 43% spending $250,000 to $999,999, and just 7% spending under $250,000. (Cisco)

  • In 2019, spending in the cybersecurity industry reached around $40.8 billion USD. (Statista)

  • Cloud security is forecasted to have double-digit growth from 2020 to 2021 in terms of security investment and spending (various sources)

Therefore, Cybersecurity is certainly a business imperative in this 21st-century digital business era.  Security and business leaders should look into cybersecurity as a substantial part of managing a business, especially data and information-driven organizations. There are three approaches to cybersecurity budgeting.

Proactive and Reactive Approach

Businesses should look into cybersecurity as a direct threat and risk rather than passive. In today’s business world security breaches and information data leaks have become a common affair. Can organizations take the risk of losing data? today’s security leaders should take a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach toward cybersecurity.

Bench Mark Approach

A benchmark approach looks at how you’re operating and compares it to your peers, a framework, a comprehensive study, or a group of interviewed organizations. When an organization can observe the best practices of other security teams (organizational structure, level of investment in security, KPIs, etc.), the organization can quantify its results and prepare a standard cybersecurity budget that begins to improve on weaknesses and strengthen opportunities.

Risk Based Approach

A risk-based approach is often considered a budgeting method for mature security organizations because they can categorize risks across several domains and budget based on the cost to mitigate cyber risks. This approach categorizes an organization’s security lifecycle areas by varying degrees of risk. This enables your organization to prioritize investment in areas that will make a noticeable improvement to your security operations.
 
Contact us today to find out how we help you meet your compliance goals and propel your business.

 

Functions of OSI Layer

Article / December 8, 2023

Functions of The OSI Layer: An Introduction

Open System Interconnection (OSI) Model developed by the International Standards Organization (ISO) which describe the flow of information from one computing device to another. OSI model is likewise called ISO OSI reference model.
Here, PC 1 is sending data to PC 2. In this process, the data will transfer from different layers, and it is well explained by OSI Model.

The Seven Layers

1. Physical Layer

This includes the cable and wireless connections among devices as well as the specifications of the jacks, plugs, voltages etc.

2. Data Link Layer

It provides the direct protocol connection between two nodes on a network and handles error connection from the physical layer.

3. Network Layer

This is the routing layer at which packets are forwarded from their source to their destination.

4. Transport Layer

This layer coordinates the transfer of data between systems and hosts by specifying such thing as how much data to send and at what rate.

5. Session Layer

For two devices to transact specific functions between each other a session is required. Session layer handles setting up sessions, coordinating the rule of communication, such as how long to wait for responses and how to terminate the session layer.

6. Presentation Layer

At this layer, data is prepared for presentation between layers, for example, data that is encrypted across a network would be decrypted at this layer for presentation to an application at the destination device.

7. Application Layer

This is the layer at which applications are displayed to the end user.

How does data flow?

Terminologies

Packet:

While imparting through networks it’s vital to send and get documents and data. The fundamental unit of correspondence between a source and an objective in a network is a packet.

Frame:

Like packets, outlines are little pieces of a message in a network. It assists with distinguishing information and deciding the manner in which it ought to be decoded and deciphered. The primary contrast between a packet and a frame is the relationship with the OSI layers.

Segment:

A segment is a wrecked piece of a packet with a TCP header in every one of them. Close by the source and objective ports, it contains the checksum field that guarantees the past information’s accuracy through the network. Segments increment the productivity of network execution and further develop security.

Binary Bits:

A binary digit, or bit, is the smallest unit of information in a computer. It is used for storing information and has a value of true/false, or on/off or 0/1.

Functions of The OSI Layers

1. Physical Layer

  • Converting bits to a signal during the transmission medium and again converting the signal into bits and pass it on to the receiver
  • Use different types of encoding methods to convert a signal to a bit
  • Determine the transmission rate of data
  • Synchronize the bits both for the sender and receiver
  • Establishing and termination of physical connection between two communication systems
  • Shares communication resources among multiple users. Including networks such as contention resolution and flow control

2. Data Link Layer

  • HOP to HOP delivery (point to point protocols)
  • Error control
  • Flow Control
  • Framing
  • Uses both LAN and WAN Services to arrange Bits from physical layers in logical sequences called Frames.

3. Network Layer

  • The network layer conventions figure out which course is reasonable from source to destination.
  • The source and collector’s IP addresses are put in the header by the network layer. Such an address separates every device interestingly and all around.
  • Maintain Quality of service when transmitting data sequence from one source of network to other(host) source of network as requested by transport layer.
  • This layer Performs Network routing function, fragmentation & reassembling
  • Reports Delivery errors
  • Network layer performs various layer-Management protocols like
    a) Routing protocol
    b) Multicast group management
    c) Network layer information and error

4. Transport Layer

  • This layer acknowledges the message from the session layer, breaks the message into more modest units. Every one of the segments created has a header related to it.
  • To convey the message to the right cycle, the transport layer header incorporates a kind of address called service point address or port address. Subsequently, by indicating this address, the physical layer ensures that the message is conveyed to the right cycle.
  • Provides reliable data transfer services to upper layer. This reliability is ensured through processes of Segmentation and Desegmentation.
  • Keep track of segments and retransmit those that fails.
  • The transport layer provides the acknowledgement for successful data transmission or the errors occurred.

5. Session Layer

  • The layer permits the two cycles to layout, use and ends a connection.
  • This layer permits an interaction to add designated spots which are viewed as synchronization focuses into the information. These synchronization guides help to distinguish the mistake so the information is re-synchronized appropriately, and closures of the messages are not cut rashly and information misfortune is kept away from.
  • Session’s layer is commonly implemented in application environments that uses remote procedure call (Software protocol).
  • This layer establishes check-pointing, adjournment, termination and restart procedures.

6. Presentation Layer

  • Information encryption makes an interpretation of the information into another structure or code. The encrypted information is known as the cipher text and the decoded information is known as plain text. A key worth is utilized for encrypting as well as decrypting information
  • Diminishes the number of bits that should be communicated to the organization
  • This layer is responsible for Interoperability
  • Presentation layer is responsible for integrating all the formats into a standard format for efficient and effective communication.
  • This layer deals with the syntax and semantics (Computer code language)
  • This method deals with string representation (Choosing pascal method or C++ language)
  • This layer makes data readable.

7. Application Layer

  • Network Virtual Terminal
  • File transfer access and management
  • Mail Services
  • Directory Services
  • This is the last layer which directly interacts with the user as well as the software application that implements the communication component.
  • This layer determines the identity and availability of communication partners for application with an efficient data to transmit.
  • This Layer handles Network transparency and resource allocation.

Cybersecurity Budgeting: 6 Tips for an effective security Budgeting

Article / November 26, 2024

Effective Cybersecurity Budgeting Strategy:
A Guide to Secure Your Business

Cybersecurity has become an essential part of the corporate security landscape. With the evolving business transformation in the recent past, business is now highly becoming dependent on Information and digital data and so it needs effective cybersecurity budgeting strategy. Incidentally, the security threat and the cyberattack practice/mechanism are evolving into much more sophisticated and coordinated. Evidently, Cybersecurity has transcended into new business reality and more importantly has become a business imperative. But security is itself a vague concept, especially cybersecurity is mostly dealt with a reactive approach rather than a proactive approach. One of the serious quandaries which every organisation faces with cybersecurity is INVESTMENT AND CYBER STRATEGY. 

6 Tips for an effective security budgeting

1. Determine the Threat Landscape

Cybersecurity doesn’t have a one size fits all approach. It is always unique to every organisation and industry. It is very critical to understand the events, potential threats, breaches and security incidents. Business should always be aware of the security threats as the speed of cyberattacks are exponential. Ransomware attacks can happen every 11 seconds. An organisation can be better evaluated with available standard cybersecurity assessments.

2. Understand the Business Landscape

Businesses all over the globe are experiencing a grand transformation especially with the Digital transformation. Therefore, every business leader, especially security leaders must understand the threat landscape within their business landscape to design and devise an effective cybersecurity budgeting strategy.

3. Monitor and Measure

Formulating better Measurements and Key performance indicators will help the security team and C-level executives to determine if the laid-out security budget is being spent productively and achieving the optimal benefits for the business. 
 

4. Risk-Based/Reactive or Tactical/Proactive

Modern-day business leaders and innovative start-ups have always been a leap forward in ensuring the business decisions are enterprising and proactive. Within security posture, Cybersecurity holds a greater value in the contemporary business spectrum as it can sway a greater financial and reputational loss to an organisation. In this regard, smart cybersecurity budgeting is a business imperative.

5. Choice of security team(In-house/external)

An enterprising cybersecurity budget needs a qualified and well-trained security professional which itself covers a significant part of the Budget. However, a managed security partner can greatly help streamline spending through efficient knowledge-sharing, training, and reporting.

6. Determine Critical spending

With the world moving towards a much innovative business restructuring, evidently the security must play a major role in digital transformation projects, such as moving workloads to the cloud, supporting remote working. Therefore, smart cybersecurity planning must be reflected in the security budget for securing changes in IT infrastructure projects.
 
Learn more about our tailored cybersecurity consulting services here.

8 Most Destructive Malwares

Article / November 26, 2024

The 8 most Destructive Malware Attacks and How to Protect Against Them

In this article we will know that What is a Malware and what are the most destructive malware attacks?

Malware is intrusive software that is designed to damage and destroy computers and computer systems. The word Malware comes from “malicious software.” In the 1980s the first malware was created which is a computer program code that acts as a host within a computer system.

Some common types of malwares:

Viruses: A virus is a malicious software attached to a document or a file That executes its code and spread from Host to Host. Their code is designed in such a way that once opened, it will disrupt the system’s ability to work, hence creating an operational issue or Data loss.

Viruses: A virus is a malicious software attached to a document or a file That executes its code and spread from Host to Host. Their code is designed in such a way that once opened, it will disrupt the system’s ability to work, hence creating an operational issue or Data loss.
 
Worms: Computer Worm malware usually spreads copies of itself from computer to computer, often via email contacts of the victims.
 
Trojan viruses: Malware software is often disguised as a legitimate tool designed to gain access to user data.
 
Spyware: Spyware is disguised software that gathers information about a person or an organisation.
 
Adware: It is spyware disguised as an advertisement which when clicked or opened injects viruses or trojans into the system which can attack a computer system or sometimes redirects you to some other unsafe sites.
 
Ransomware: Ransomware is malicious software that gains access to sensitive information within a system, encrypts that information so that the user cannot access the system and then usually demands a financial pay out for the data to be released.

Most destructive malwares of all time:

EMOTET: It is a Trojan Malware that is created to target the banking landscape which can sneak into a computer system and steal sensitive and private information. It is also called as malspam which enters into a system mostly through emails, especially spam mails. It is regarded as one of the destructive malware by the Department of homeland security, US. It has affected government and private, Individuals and Organisations alike costing up to one million for each attack.
WannaCry:  This is a Kind of Malicious software mostly used by cybercriminals to extort ransom. This ransomware can encrypt the valuable files of a system or an organisation’s IT structure, further takes control of your system and data as hostage to make it redundant until it is unlocked by the attacker. In 2017 this ransomware created a global cyber epidemic, which affected almost all windows devices.
Petya/Not Petya: NotPetya is considered one of the world’s worst cyberattacks that came into force in 2017. Petya is a family of encrypting ransomware that was first discovered in 2016 – a piece of criminal code that surfaced in early 2016 and extorted victims to pay for a key to unlock their files. This ransomware cost around $10 Billion.
Stuxnet/worm: Stuxnet is a computer worm that was originally aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities and has since mutated and spread to other industrial and energy-producing facilities. The original Stuxnet malware attack targeted the programmable logic controllers (PLCs) used to automate machine processes.
Zeus trojan: Zeus trojan was primarily created to target financial and banking information. It is also called crimeware. This virus was first caught in 2007 when stealing sensitive information from a system owned by the US state department. This usually uses phishing campaigns, spam campaigns, and drive-by downloads to enter into a target system.
Storm Worm: Storm worm belongs to the botnet family virus. In 2007, It spread to one million computers. Storm worm combined several kinds of attacks, making it far more sophisticated. It majorly targeted Microsoft Windows devices. It accounted for 8% of all malware infections globally.
Mydoom worm: This email worm was first discovered in 2004. It became one of the fastest spreading email worms to date.
SQL Slammer: Found in 2003, this computer worm has caused great devastation in the cyber world leading to a denial of service on some Internet hosts and dramatically slowing down the general internet traffic. It spread rapidly, infecting most of its 75,000 victims within ten minutes.

 

Want to protect your business from these destructive malware attacks? 

Contact Consultants Factory for tailored cybersecurity solutions today!

 

5 Significant Data Breaches of 2022

Article / November 26, 2024

The Top 5 Data Breaches of 2022:
What Went Wrong and How to Protect Your Business

Cybersecurity has been evolving as a substantial threat to business ecosystems worldwide. 2021 has witnessed some biggest and disastrous data breaches. With the Covid-pandemic and consequent lockdowns, the business worldwide has taken a paradigm shift in their work models especially with the work from home evolutions. Work from home landscape particularly exposed huge vulnerabilities in most of organisations. From the beginning of 2022, an estimated 85 million records have been breached. With the evolving Human- technology interactions, cyberspace will always act active and dynamic. Here we will see the Top 5 Most Significant Data Breaches for 2022.

Biggest data breaches in 2022 are as follows:

1. GiveSendGo

Let’s know about the first data breach out of the Top 5 Most Significant Data Breaches. In February 2022, some politically- motivated hackers breached into Christian fundraising platform GiveSendGo and posted nearly 90,000 personal records of subjects who donated to Ottawa Freedom convey protests (Canada). They posted all this personal data on the website of GiveSendGo.

2. Crypto.com

In January 2022, Hackers broke into the wallets of nearly 438 users and stole nearly $18 million in bitcoin and $15 million in Ethereum, along with other cryptocurrencies. The hackers have hijacked the two-factor authentication and hacked these wallets. Crypto is becoming one of the primary targets for cyber hackers. Less regulation can be regarded as one of the reasons. As a part of the compliance mechanism, crypto.com has audited its entire security to restructure and improve its security posture. Also, it is reported that all the users have been reimbursed.

3. Oklahoma non-profit community hospital data leak

This march 2022, A Non-profit community hospital in Oklahoma has been targeted by cyber hackers. Nearly, 92,000 users’ health records have been hacked which include patients’ names, date of birth, Social Security number, limited treatment information and medical appointment information such as date of service and name of providers. Health care is always a sensitive target for hackers. Heath records contain some vital Personal Identifiable Information which is very static when compared to financial data like credit card details which can be replaced.

4. Central Indiana orthopaedics data breach

CIO is a Company based out of Indiana, the USA. It has suffered a Data Breach on the 7th of this month. According to the central Indiana Orthopaedic, Once the data breach has been identified, all the users whose data was leaked has been notified through the letter. This Health care company mostly holds the data of people suffering from Orthopaedic issues. 

5. Samsung Data leak

The last among the Top 5 Most Significant Data Breaches is Samsung Data Leak, one of the recent data breaches among the high-profile brand is the Samsung data breach. Samsung has confirmed that nearly 190 GB of data containing Software code belonging to one of its flagship model smartphones GALAXY. This is a kind of breach that impacted the internal organisation data rather than Samsung’s consumers.

Some of the other significant data breaches occurred in 2022:

A hacking incident involving data exfiltration, affecting 1.3 million individuals, reported on Jan. 2 by Florida-based North Broward Hospital District, which does business as Broward Health.
A ransomware incident, affecting more than 521,000 individuals, reported on Feb. 1 by Michigan-based Morley Companies Inc., a vendor that provides business processing services to health plans.
A cyberattack involving the exploitation of a SonicWall product vulnerability, affecting nearly 135,000 individuals, reported on Jan. 7 by Utah-based Medical Review Institute of America, a vendor that provides clinical reviews and virtual second opinions.
A hacking incident involving data theft, affecting nearly 134,000 individuals, reported on Jan. 22 by Massachusetts-based Medical Healthcare Solutions Inc., a medical billing vendor.
A network hacking incident that appears to involve ransomware, affecting nearly 116,000 individuals, was reported on Feb. 7 by Illinois-based South Shore Hospital Corp, a community healthcare organization.