Path_Visbility_Preset_scc

Incident Response scenarios should never be too Theoretical, else you will never get to understand the REAL RISKS to your ecosystem. Set up the components, understand the routes, leave it to run. You get assessment information on the risks vectors if you have setup anything incorrectly within your ecosystem, you get insights what may affect you; regulatory framework breach, compromised components, blinded visibility within your ecosystem. This works even if you have AI-vector components that you may have introduced to your ecosystem, detected risks will be flagged, then you improve your security posture by fencing your measures correctly. Seeing: Red Flags Assessment metrics You garner: Insights Visibility Plan 🪬 Protect RULE of Thumb in Security: You can only guard to protect what you can see and what you know. Don't be blinded by unknown vectors or "presumptions". Presumption itself carries a big risk. Likewise, this works well as an additional component to your Attack Surface Management. You can provide this to your vendor when they propose scenarios for Incident Response, go through with your vendors and let them know their proposed idea might not work and why. This says it all. Personally, I have come across incident response table-tops exercises being planned unfairly and too theoretical with boring components akin to vishing, phishing ransomware. Have this in your war game, and you will know if they plan your incident response TTX the right way.