(Video) In this podcast, we share insights from Edna Conway, a recognized leader in cybersecurity and supply chain resilience with over 40 years of experience in the field.
The post Podcast: Compliance Won’t Save You: The Future of Cyber Risk with Edna Conway appeared first on SecurityWeek.
The best compliance programs aren't the biggest ones. They're the ones built on a short list of questions that can actually be answered, and that still hold true when the models change.
The post Timeless Compliance: Why Better Questions Beat Bigger Frameworks appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Compliance has become one of the biggest operational drains on modern security teams. CISOs are being asked to manage a growing sprawl of frameworks, prove control effectiveness more often, respond to more customer assurance requests, track risk across a growing web of third parties, and give executives and the board a clearer answer on whether cyber risk is actually going down.
Most of that pressure does not come from the frameworks themselves. It comes from the way compliance is still handled in many organizations, with security work happening in one set of tools and governance, risk, and compliance workflows managed somewhere else. Security teams detect exposures, investigate threats, validate risk, and drive remediation in active systems. Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) teams are often left managing controls, evidence, audits, third-party risk, and reporting in separate systems of record, which turns compliance into a constant reconciliation exercise rather than an extension of the security program.
That separation creates real drag. Skilled technical teams get pulled into repeated cycles of screenshots, exports, control validation, and spreadsheet updates, while CISOs are still left trying to answer the question that matters most: are our controls actually working right now?
Available today, Rapid7 Cyber GRC completely changes that model by connecting governance, risk, and compliance workflows to the security data and activity already happening across the environment. The result is a more connected way to reduce manual work, improve readiness, and turn security action into compliance proof.
For years, compliance work followed a familiar rhythm: prepare for the audit, gather evidence, prove the control, respond to findings, and start over when the next framework, customer review, or regulatory requirement arrives.
That rhythm works in conflict with how security teams operate today. Modern environments change continuously. Assets appear, cloud configurations drift, access permissions change, vulnerabilities emerge, vendors introduce risk, and remediation work is always in motion.
This leaves a widening gap between the state of the environment and the state of the evidence. A control that looked effective during the last audit may drift weeks later. A remediation effort may reduce risk, but the compliance record may not reflect it. A new exposure may change the risk tied to a control before the next review begins.
Boards and customers are asking for something more credible than periodic audit readiness. They want to understand whether security work is actually improving control health and reducing risk over time.
That is the shift from audit prep to continuous cyber assurance, built on better context and closer alignment between teams. As Bill Theissen, Managing Partner and VP of Consulting Services at Cyber Watch Systems, put it, “What excites me most about Rapid7 Cyber GRC is its ability to use existing security data, asset inventories, and API connectivity to produce more accurate, timely, and defensible risk reporting. Just as important, it helps bridge security engineering and GRC teams through a shared view of risk and a common language for communicating it.”
Cyber GRC is designed to support that shift by making governance, risk, and compliance part of how security teams prioritize, act, and prove progress. Compliance should not only document security activity after the fact - it should help show how that activity makes the business safer.
Rapid7 Cyber GRC brings core GRC workflows into one place, including compliance program management, control monitoring, evidence collection, policy management, audit preparation, risk management, third-party risk management, exceptions, and reporting. Instead of managing those workflows in separate tools, teams can connect them to security context from the environment they are actively protecting.
Cyber GRC helps teams operationalize that model in a few practical ways:
Control monitoring helps teams see where requirements are being met and where gaps need attention.
Evidence workflows help teams collect, organize, and reuse proof across frameworks instead of rebuilding it for every audit.
Policy management helps link policies to controls, so teams can understand how documentation supports readiness.
Risk and issue workflows help teams assign ownership, track remediation, and prioritize work based on business and security context.
The value of that model is not just administrative efficiency. Security teams need confidence that controls are operating as intended, not simply that a control exists on paper. A policy may be in place without the control performing effectively. A remediation ticket may be closed without the underlying risk truly being reduced. Control testing and monitoring help close that gap by showing whether controls are functioning as expected, while issue and remediation workflows connect those findings to owners and next steps.
By connecting controls, evidence, risk, issues, policies, and remediation activity, Cyber GRC gives SecOps, IT, GRC, and compliance teams a shared view of where they stand and what needs to happen next.
Third-party risk has become too significant to sit outside the rest of the security and compliance program. As organizations rely on more outside services, software, and vendors, they need a way to connect vendor risk to the same controls, evidence, remediation, and reporting workflows used internally. Verizon’s 2026 DBIR found that breaches involving third parties increased 60% from the previous year’s dataset and accounted for 48% of total breaches, which makes that connection harder to treat as optional.
Cyber GRC brings third-party risk management into the same operating picture by combining vendor oversight, control tracking, issue management, and evidence workflows in one place. That gives teams a more coherent way to assess external dependencies, understand where vendor risk affects control posture, and track action without creating yet another disconnected program.
CISOs are under pressure to show progress in a way executives and boards can understand, and audit status alone does not tell the whole story.
Cyber GRC helps teams connect day-to-day security and compliance activity to higher-level reporting, including control health, readiness status, open risks, remediation progress, third-party dependencies, and evidence coverage. That gives leaders a clearer view of which gaps matter most, what is being done about them, and how security work is reducing risk.
IDC’s Phil Harris, Research Director for Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) Solutions at IDC put this challenge into context: “Organizations face severe audit fatigue. The disconnect between compliance workflows and security operations creates significant operational drag, particularly when teams still rely on point-in-time spreadsheets and manual evidence collection.”
What makes that more useful is the quality of the underlying context. When controls, evidence, vulnerabilities, risk, and remediation are tied together, leadership gets a stronger basis for understanding not just whether the organization is compliant, but whether its controls are keeping pace with the way risk is actually developing.
Security leaders have an opportunity to make compliance more connected, more useful, and closely aligned to the work already happening across their security program.
Rapid7 approaches Cyber GRC as part of a broader security program. What makes that more useful is the quality of the underlying context. When controls, evidence, vulnerabilities, risk, and remediation are tied together, leadership gets a stronger basis for understanding not just whether the organization is compliant, but whether its controls are keeping pace with the way risk is actually developing.
That connection is at the core of what makes this solution different. Compliance proof is stronger when it is grounded in security context, not assembled after the fact from disconnected tools and static reports. With Rapid7 Cyber GRC, teams can move from documenting compliance activity to showing how security work is improving control health and reducing risk in real time.
"Tying GRC workflows directly into SecOps data is a strong approach because it allows CISOs to seamlessly align tangible security outcomes with compliance requirements. SecOps teams handle the heavy lifting in modern environments, and replacing manual, point-in-time audit preparation with continuous monitoring grounded in active security context, addresses a massive operational pain point for organizations," concluded IDC’s Phil Harris.
See how Rapid7 Cyber GRC can help your team turn security operations into continuous cyber assurance.
Industry professionals broadly agree that the suspension pauses third-party CMMC audits but not the underlying legal obligation to protect CUI.
The post Industry Reactions to Pentagon Suspending CMMC Phase 2: Feedback Friday appeared first on SecurityWeek.
A new CMMC review and reform task force will conduct a comprehensive review of the program.
The post Pentagon Suspends CMMC Phase 2 as It Rethinks Contractor Cybersecurity Rules appeared first on SecurityWeek.
As AI-driven vulnerability discovery accelerates, the cybersecurity ecosystem is being forced to examine whether the standards, disclosure processes, and prioritization frameworks defenders rely on can still keep pace. Many of those systems were built around human-speed discovery, manageable vulnerability volumes, and exploitability confirmed after the fact, which leaves them under increasing strain as frontier AI capabilities mature.
During a private sector consultation with the White House in June, Corey Thomas and I presented Rapid7’s new policy paper, Modernizing Global Vulnerability Standards, which lays out where today’s vulnerability management infrastructure is breaking under AI-era conditions and what governments, security companies, and frontier AI providers need to do next.
In recent guidance, the Five Eyes cyber security agencies warned that AI is rapidly transforming cyber risk by increasing the speed, scale, and sophistication of threats, lowering barriers for malicious actors, and requiring leaders to reassess long-standing assumptions about resilience and accountability.
In April 2026, Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google DeepMind each announced production-grade AI systems capable of discovering, chaining, and, in some cases, remediating software vulnerabilities at machine speed. In the same period, the Stanford HAI AI Index 2026 Cybench benchmark showed unguided AI agent solve rates on cybersecurity tasks rising from 15% to 93% in a single year.
These are deployed capabilities on a steep improvement curve. Faster discovery can help security teams identify weaknesses earlier, validate risk more effectively, and improve remediation workflows. It also increases the pressure on every system that decides how vulnerabilities are verified, scored, disclosed, prioritized, and fixed.
For decades, the security community has depended on shared infrastructure to make vulnerability management work. CVE identifiers, CVSS scoring, the National Vulnerability Database, the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and the Exploit Prediction Scoring System all help organizations understand what a vulnerability is, how severe it may be, whether it is being exploited, and how urgently it should be addressed.
Those systems were built around several assumptions: vulnerability discovery would be human-led, volume would remain manageable, exploitability would usually be confirmed after the fact, and organizations would have time to assess and respond. As AI-driven discovery challenges each of those assumptions, existing strain across the vulnerability ecosystem becomes much harder to absorb.
CVE submissions already grew 263% between 2020 and 2025 from human-speed growth alone. NIST acknowledged in April 2026 that the National Vulnerability Database can no longer keep pace and is shifting to risk-based triage. If AI-driven discovery dramatically increases volume, the prioritization problem becomes even more acute.
The issue for defenders is whether organizations can understand which vulnerabilities are actually exploitable, which are reachable in their environments, which can be chained together, and which require immediate action.
The paper argues that the prioritization gap is the most urgent and least addressed part of the problem. Traditional severity scores can miss the way attackers chain multiple lower-severity issues into a serious compromise. KEV remains one of the strongest signals available to defenders, but it is retrospective by design because it depends on confirmed exploitation in the wild. EPSS is trained on historical attacker behavior, which may not reflect what AI-assisted attackers can now do.
To close that gap, we propose reforms that would help move vulnerability prioritization closer to real-world risk. These include recognizing verified AI-demonstrated exploitability, adding chaining-risk metadata to vulnerability records, and requiring reachability guidance alongside AI-discovered findings.
The goal is to help organizations understand how dangerous a vulnerability is in practice, in their environment, rather than relying only on abstract severity.
The paper also outlines a broader policy agenda - we call for updates to the Vulnerabilities Equities Process, investment in CVE and NVD infrastructure, standardized capability disclosure from AI labs, stronger international coordination, and clear CISA leadership.
We also propose three access and verification standards for the security community:
Independent verification before access expansion
Broad but curated access through transparent processes
Rigorous data standards for published capability claims
The frontier model providers building these capabilities deserve credit for acting responsibly as they develop programs in real time. But individual access programs cannot carry the weight of ecosystem governance on their own. The security community needs shared standards backed by independent verification and institutional accountability.
This paper is part of a wider conversation we recently explored on Rapid7’s Experts on Experts: Commanding Perspectives, where Corey and I discussed AI, compliance, industry accountability, and the shift toward more resilient security operations.
AI-driven vulnerability discovery has crossed a threshold. The question now is whether the policy, standards, and operational systems around it can adapt quickly enough to help defenders use these capabilities safely and effectively.
Read the full paper, Modernizing Global Vulnerability Standards, to explore Rapid7’s recommendations for verification, access, disclosure, prioritization, and institutional accountability in the age of AI-driven vulnerability discovery.
This week on Experts on Experts, I sat down with Sabeen Malik, Rapid7’s VP of Global Government Affairs and Public Policy, to discuss a shift security leaders can’t afford to treat as separate threads: frontier AI, vulnerability discovery, cybersecurity compliance, and operational resilience.
AI is changing how quickly vulnerabilities can be found, validated, and potentially exploited. At the same time, regulators, boards, and customers are asking for stronger proof that controls are working and risk is being reduced. Security leaders are being pushed to move at machine speed while proving the business is resilient.
Sabeen and I started with the policy question. Many of the systems security teams rely on today were designed for a slower era of human-led discovery. Vulnerability disclosure processes, scoring systems, prioritization frameworks, and regulatory expectations all assume organizations have time to assess, verify, and respond.
Frontier AI challenges that assumption. If models can help find and chain vulnerabilities faster, the industry needs stronger standards around verification, access, disclosure, and accountability. Access to powerful models matters, but access alone does not solve the governance problem. The bigger question is whether the ecosystem can responsibly validate, prioritize, and act on what these systems produce.
For defenders, faster discovery is only useful if it leads to faster action. Finding more vulnerabilities does not automatically make organizations safer. In many cases, it creates more noise for teams already under pressure.
The real challenge is exploitability. Security teams need to understand which risks are actually reachable, which issues matter most in their environment, and where action will reduce exposure fastest. That is where the shift from reactive security to preemptive security becomes critical. The goal is to use data, context, AI, and expertise to act earlier, not simply respond faster after something happens.
We also discussed how the compliance environment is changing. Organizations are no longer being asked to prove readiness once a year. Increasingly, they need to provide detailed evidence on shorter timelines across a growing set of regulatory and assurance requirements.
That creates a real challenge when evidence is collected manually or disconnected from live security operations. Leaders need to show what changed, what was fixed, who owns the response, and what risk remains. Static snapshots are no longer enough.
One of the clearest themes from the conversation is that the future of security operations will be AI-driven, but human-led. AI can help teams move faster, surface what matters, and respond with greater scale and consistency. But governance, accountability, and judgment still matter.
That same principle applies to compliance. Security and compliance teams need live operational context, not disconnected reports. They need to connect what they detect, what they fix, and what they can prove.
Watch the full episode to hear our conversation on what this moment means for AI in cybersecurity, cybersecurity compliance, and resilient security operations:
⠀
The NIS2 directive asks covered organizations to take a more structured approach to risk management, governance, supply chain security, and incident reporting. It expands the scope of who may be covered, raises expectations around management body accountability, introduces clearer and more enforceable requirements, and increases pressure on organizations to show that security is being managed in a consistent, defensible way. Reporting timelines are one of the most visible parts of that shift, with early warning required within 24 hours of awareness for significant incidents, incident notification within 72 hours, and a final report within one month. It also arrived in a landscape that is still uneven, with member states continuing to implement the directive in different ways across the EU.
That combination has created a familiar challenge for CISOs and security teams, as the questions coming from boards and leadership are no longer just about whether the organization understands the regulation, but whether it can meet the requirements in practice. NIS2 reaches into risk management, reporting, governance, and supply chain oversight, which means readiness depends on how well security works across the business, not just on how well a policy is written.
That is why the most useful way to think about NIS2 is as an operational resilience exercise. Compliance still matters, of course, and teams need to know what the directive requires. What tends to make the difference over time is whether security leaders can connect those requirements to the real conditions of the environment: what is exposed, where ownership sits, how incident response works in practice, how supply chain risk is monitored, and how quickly the organization can move when something material happens.
Regulations are easier to absorb than operating model changes. A team may understand that NIS2 raises expectations around governance and incident handling, while still finding it difficult to answer basic questions quickly when pressure rises. Which business services are most critical? Which third parties matter most? Who owns the decision when a serious issue lands? How prepared are we to investigate, communicate, and report inside the timelines the directive expects? Those are the questions that separate a compliance project from a resilience program.
That is also why we have been building practical content to help teams move from interpretation to action.
Our ebook is the best place to start if you want the wider context. It is designed to help security leaders understand what NIS2 means in practical terms, how to think about the directive beyond a narrow checklist, and how to connect compliance obligations to a broader resilience strategy. If your team needs a stronger narrative for internal stakeholders, or a clearer way to explain why NIS2 should influence operational priorities, the ebook is the most useful first read.
Next, our infographic, seen below, is the quickest asset to use when you need to communicate one of the most tangible parts of NIS2: the 24-hour reporting requirement. Some stakeholders need the long-form explanation. Others need a practical view of what has to happen between incident awareness and early notification. The infographic helps teams bring that operational pressure into planning conversations, leadership updates, and internal alignment without requiring everyone to start with a longer asset first.
⠀
Taken together, these assets are useful because they serve different parts of the same problem. The ebook gives you a strategic view and the infographic helps communicate the big picture quickly and clearly.
Enforcement expectations, reporting maturity, and national interpretation continue to evolve, and security teams are working through those changes at the same time as the wider threat landscape becomes more complex. A stronger response starts with clarity, but it needs to move quickly into coordination, ownership, and repeatable process if it is going to hold up under pressure.
If your organization is still treating NIS2 as a point-in-time compliance exercise, now is a good moment to widen the lens. The directive is pushing security leaders beyond a comply-once approach and toward a model of being continuously secure. Teams that build better visibility, stronger governance, and clearer response processes for NIS2 will be better prepared not only for regulatory scrutiny, but for the wider operational demands that are already shaping the market.
If your organization operates in the EU, or works with organizations that do, NIS2 is no longer something on the horizon. It is here and it applies to a far wider range of sectors than its predecessor, the original NIS Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/1148), and it comes with real consequences for organizations that cannot demonstrate they are meeting its requirements. The good news? You do not have to figure out how to approach it alone.
Rapid7 has developed a dedicated NIS2 resource page that shows how the Command Platform can support key technical and operational aspects of NIS2 readiness, highlights common security program gaps, and explains where our solutions can help strengthen visibility, prioritization, detection, and reporting readiness. It is not a substitute for the broader organizational, legal, and governance measures the directive also requires, but it can be a useful starting point if you are evaluating your security capabilities and want a clearer picture of where tooling can support your approach. If you are in the early stages of assessing readiness, or further along and looking for a clearer view of the technical side, it is worth 10 minutes of your time.
NIS2, formally Directive (EU) 2022/2555, expands the scope of EU cybersecurity regulation significantly. More sectors are covered,the requirements are more demanding, and, crucially, the expectations have shifted from "do you have policies in place?" to "can you demonstrate that your controls actually work, continuously?".
Article 21 mandates specific risk-management measures, including risk analysis, incident handling, business continuity, supply chain security, vulnerability handling, access control, and policies regarding the use of cryptography and encryption.. Article 23 introduces strict incident reporting timelines: an early warning within 24 hours, a full notification within 72 hours, and a detailed report within one month of a significant incident.
For many security teams, these timelines necessitate a shift in operational readiness. Timely and accurate incident reporting requires pre-established detection workflows, investigation processes, and contemporaneous documentation practices to be in place prior to an incident..
NIS2 also raises the stakes at a leadership level. Executive accountability for cybersecurity is now formalised. This is not just a technical team problem. It is a governance issue that touches CISOs, boards, and senior leadership across every in-scope organization.
Many security programs were designed around a different set of expectations. Periodic vulnerability scans.,annual audits, and compliance reports that reflected a moment in time rather than ongoing operational health.
NIS2 necessitates a move toward continuous, defensible risk management. This involves maintaining comprehensive asset visibility, identifying threat-aware exposures with high likelihood of exploitability, and validating the effectiveness of detection capabilities to support regulatory reporting requirements..
It is a meaningful operational shift, and it is exactly the kind of shift where having the right platform and the right partner matters.
Rapid7 views NIS2 as an operational readiness challenge. The objective is to assist organizations in transitioning from periodic compliance assessments to continuous resilience: a sustained, measurable security posture designed to support regulatory alignment and strengthen defense-in-depth against emerging threats. The platform integrates exposure management, vulnerability management, cloud security, SIEM, and managed detection and response to provide broad support for the core requirements of Article 21 within a unified, connected view of risk..
That means organizations can move from scattered, point-in-time security activity to continuous visibility, threat-informed prioritization, faster incident workflows, and the kind of evidence and reporting that NIS2 and regulators actually demand.
A few areas where this makes a real difference:
Rapid7 is positioned as a Leader in the 2025 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Exposure Assessment Platforms, a technology category fundamental to the Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) framework, which supports the proactive risk-management objectives of NIS2. Surface Command provides centralized visibility across internal and external environments, supporting the identification of unmanaged assets, shadow IT, and security control gaps that may otherwise remain undetected. Exposure Command utilizes active risk scoring and attack path analysis to identify and prioritize exposures based on reachability and threat context, helping teams focus remediation efforts on high-impact risks.
Rapid7's SIEM and MDR capabilities are designed to support the detection, investigation, and reporting speed necessitated by NIS2. 24/7 monitoring and managed response facilitate the capture of essential telemetry and investigation trails within the SIEM, streamlining the evidence collection process for regulatory reporting.
NIS2 is not satisfied by a list of tools you have purchased. It wants evidence that your controls are effective. Rapid7 provides continuous risk scoring, detection metrics, and audit-ready reporting that translates security activity into governance-ready language for leadership and regulators.
This post covers the highlights, but Rapid7's NIS2 resource page goes much deeper.
It walks through each of Article 21's requirements in plain language, maps them to specific Rapid7 capabilities, and shows how the platform supports risk analysis... MFA monitoring, and technical assessment of cryptographic configurations. Whether you are a CISO seeking a strategic overview, a security manager evaluating technical controls, or a compliance lead mapping regulatory requirements to platform capabilities, our guidance is designed to support your objectives. NIS2 is operational; your approach to resilience should be as well. NIS2 is operational and your readiness should be too.
See how Rapid7 supports NIS2 compliance here.
This week on Experts on Experts, I’m joined by Sergio Alonso – Rapid7’s Director of Trust, Risk, and Compliance – to talk about how compliance is changing and why many security teams are rethinking the way they approach readiness, reporting, and operational risk.
One of the biggest themes in the conversation is that compliance is no longer something organizations can treat as a point-in-time exercise. Frameworks like NIS2 and DORA are increasing expectations around resilience and accountability, while cloud environments and faster release cycles make it harder to prove that controls are working consistently over time.
We also discuss the growing gap between security operations and compliance reporting. Security teams generate huge amounts of operational data every day, but translating that into evidence regulators, auditors, and leadership teams can actually use remains a challenge. The conversation looks at how organizations are trying to reduce manual effort, where automation can genuinely help, and why visibility and ownership are becoming more important as regulatory pressure grows.
Organizations still treat compliance as separate from day-to-day security operations, and the teams making the most progress are bringing those two worlds closer together, treating compliance less like a reporting layer and more like part of the operational workflow itself.
Watch the full episode below to hear the full conversation and how organizations are approaching compliance, risk, and resilience heading into 2026.
⠀
Sabeen Malik is VP, Global Government Affairs and Public Policy at Rapid7.
⠀
Security teams need a better way to connect what they detect, what they fix, and what they can prove.
The pace of modern security operations no longer works in defenders’ favor. IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 found that the mean time to identify and contain a breach is now 241 days, even as AI and automation help defenders move faster. At the same time, Rapid7’s 2026 Global Threat Landscape Report shows how quickly attacker behavior is compressing the response window: exploited high and critical severity vulnerabilities more than doubled year over year, increasing 105% from 71 in 2024 to 146 in 2025, while the median time from publication to CISA KEV inclusion fell from 8.5 days to 5.0 days. This is not a future risk. It is today’s operational reality.
It also exposes a governance problem most security programs were not built to solve. Security teams are expected to demonstrate, continuously, that controls are working, that risk is being reduced, and that security investments are delivering measurable outcomes. Point-in-time audit evidence, assembled quarterly, is structurally incompatible with an environment where the threat picture changes in minutes.
The underlying issue is not a lack of effort, but a disconnect. Security data lives in one place, remediation happens in another, and evidence for auditors is assembled somewhere else. When leadership asks what changed, what was fixed, and what risk remains, teams are left stitching the story together manually producing reports that reflect where the organization was, not where it is.
Cyber GRC closes that gap by bringing governance, risk management, and compliance closer to the security data and workflows teams already rely on.
For years, security operations and GRC have run in parallel. One team manages threats, exposures, and remediation. Another manages policies, controls, audits, and evidence. Both aim to reduce risk, but typically without shared context or shared data.
That separation is no longer sustainable. Vulnerability exploitation rose 34% year-over-year and now accounts for 20% of all breaches, with a median of zero days between critical vulnerability publication and mass exploitation (Verizon DBIR 2025). Supply chain breaches doubled, now representing 30% of all incidents. Ransomware appeared in 44% of breaches – up 37% from the prior year.
Security leaders operating in this environment face an expectation that compliance teams were not designed to meet alone: continuous proof that controls are effective against adversaries who operate at machine speed. When AI agents can autonomously chain every phase of an attack with minimal human oversight, a quarterly audit cycle is not an assurance, but a historical record.
Boards are no longer satisfied with compliance status reports. They want dollarized risk scenarios and evidence that remediation is actually reducing exposure -- not just that it was attempted.
Two pressures are converging. First, environmental complexity: modern infrastructure spans cloud, SaaS, remote endpoints, OT systems, and third-party providers. The perimeter is everywhere, and so is the attack surface. Second, regulatory expectation: SEC, NIS2, DORA, and CMMC now require demonstrable control effectiveness, not just documented policies. Both pressures demand a model that brings security activity, compliance readiness, and accountability into the same view.
Cyber GRC changes how organizations use security data. Instead of disconnected, point-in-time artifacts, it enables teams to build governance and compliance workflows directly on top of real security telemetry – so evidence reflects the current state of the environment, not a snapshot assembled weeks before an audit.
In practice, this means connecting findings, controls, remediation activity, and evidence so teams can see what issues exist, who owns the response, how remediation is progressing, and what that means for overall readiness. This also helps address the compliance-theater problem directly: many programs are designed to pass audits rather than reduce actual exposure, creating false confidence and misallocated resources. Grounding compliance evidence in live security telemetry -- rather than manual documentation -- means teams can tell the difference between controls that are configured and controls that are working.
Compliance has historically been treated as a separate process that happens alongside security operations. In practice, it depends on the same data. The telemetry that surfaces a critical finding also determines whether a control is operating effectively.
When evidence is generated directly from operational systems, teams spend less time assembling reports and more time improving controls. Continuous monitoring for control drift allows organizations to move from reactive audit preparation toward a consistent assurance model. Third-party risk -- now a source of 30% of all breaches -- benefits particularly, since continuous TPRM monitoring surfaces supply chain exposure in real time rather than at the next assessment cycle.
This shift does not require rebuilding security programs from the ground up. With the launch of Rapid7 Cyber GRC, customers can use the security data and workflows already connected through the Command Platform to support audits, assessments, and ongoing control validation. Capabilities such as HITRUST E1 control coverage provide continuous monitoring and automated evidence collection, while features like audit-ready user access exports and unified policy data reduce manual effort across SOC 2, NIST CSF, PAI, and other common frameworks.
When NIST CSF 2.0, MITRE ATT&CK, and FAIR-based risk quantification inform the evidence model rather than just the policy library, compliance becomes a byproduct of strong security operations -- not a parallel burden.
Organizations do not need more disconnected processes for managing risk. They need a way to connect what they detect, what they fix, and what they can prove in a way that stands up to regulatory scrutiny, board-level oversight -- and keeps pace with adversaries who operate at AI speed.
That is why Rapid7 is launching Cyber GRC: to help customers bring security operations, governance, and compliance into a single, continuous view so teams can reduce risk, improve readiness, and demonstrate progress with confidence.
For current clients, reach out to your account team to get early access to Rapid7's Cyber GRC solution and help shape what comes next.
⠀
Sources: IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 | Rapid7’s 2026 Global Threat Landscape Report | Verizon DBIR 2025
Sabeen Malik is VP, Global Government Affairs and Public Policy at Rapid7.
⠀
Security teams need a better way to connect what they detect, what they fix, and what they can prove.
The pace of modern security operations no longer works in defenders’ favor. IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 found that the mean time to identify and contain a breach is now 241 days, even as AI and automation help defenders move faster. At the same time, Rapid7’s 2026 Global Threat Landscape Report shows how quickly attacker behavior is compressing the response window: exploited high and critical severity vulnerabilities more than doubled year over year, increasing 105% from 71 in 2024 to 146 in 2025, while the median time from publication to CISA KEV inclusion fell from 8.5 days to 5.0 days. This is not a future risk. It is today’s operational reality.
It also exposes a governance problem most security programs were not built to solve. Security teams are expected to demonstrate, continuously, that controls are working, that risk is being reduced, and that security investments are delivering measurable outcomes. Point-in-time audit evidence, assembled quarterly, is structurally incompatible with an environment where the threat picture changes in minutes.
The underlying issue is not a lack of effort, but a disconnect. Security data lives in one place, remediation happens in another, and evidence for auditors is assembled somewhere else. When leadership asks what changed, what was fixed, and what risk remains, teams are left stitching the story together manually producing reports that reflect where the organization was, not where it is.
Cyber GRC closes that gap by bringing governance, risk management, and compliance closer to the security data and workflows teams already rely on.
For years, security operations and GRC have run in parallel. One team manages threats, exposures, and remediation. Another manages policies, controls, audits, and evidence. Both aim to reduce risk, but typically without shared context or shared data.
That separation is no longer sustainable. Vulnerability exploitation rose 34% year-over-year and now accounts for 20% of all breaches, with a median of zero days between critical vulnerability publication and mass exploitation (Verizon DBIR 2025). Supply chain breaches doubled, now representing 30% of all incidents. Ransomware appeared in 44% of breaches – up 37% from the prior year.
Security leaders operating in this environment face an expectation that compliance teams were not designed to meet alone: continuous proof that controls are effective against adversaries who operate at machine speed. When AI agents can autonomously chain every phase of an attack with minimal human oversight, a quarterly audit cycle is not an assurance, but a historical record.
Boards are no longer satisfied with compliance status reports. They want dollarized risk scenarios and evidence that remediation is actually reducing exposure -- not just that it was attempted.
Two pressures are converging. First, environmental complexity: modern infrastructure spans cloud, SaaS, remote endpoints, OT systems, and third-party providers. The perimeter is everywhere, and so is the attack surface. Second, regulatory expectation: SEC, NIS2, DORA, and CMMC now require demonstrable control effectiveness, not just documented policies. Both pressures demand a model that brings security activity, compliance readiness, and accountability into the same view.
Cyber GRC changes how organizations use security data. Instead of disconnected, point-in-time artifacts, it enables teams to build governance and compliance workflows directly on top of real security telemetry – so evidence reflects the current state of the environment, not a snapshot assembled weeks before an audit.
In practice, this means connecting findings, controls, remediation activity, and evidence so teams can see what issues exist, who owns the response, how remediation is progressing, and what that means for overall readiness. This also helps address the compliance-theater problem directly: many programs are designed to pass audits rather than reduce actual exposure, creating false confidence and misallocated resources. Grounding compliance evidence in live security telemetry -- rather than manual documentation -- means teams can tell the difference between controls that are configured and controls that are working.
Compliance has historically been treated as a separate process that happens alongside security operations. In practice, it depends on the same data. The telemetry that surfaces a critical finding also determines whether a control is operating effectively.
When evidence is generated directly from operational systems, teams spend less time assembling reports and more time improving controls. Continuous monitoring for control drift allows organizations to move from reactive audit preparation toward a consistent assurance model. Third-party risk -- now a source of 30% of all breaches -- benefits particularly, since continuous TPRM monitoring surfaces supply chain exposure in real time rather than at the next assessment cycle.
This shift does not require rebuilding security programs from the ground up. With the launch of Rapid7 Cyber GRC, customers can use the security data and workflows already connected through the Command Platform to support audits, assessments, and ongoing control validation. Capabilities such as HITRUST E1 control coverage provide continuous monitoring and automated evidence collection, while features like audit-ready user access exports and unified policy data reduce manual effort across SOC 2, NIST CSF, PAI, and other common frameworks.
When NIST CSF 2.0, MITRE ATT&CK, and FAIR-based risk quantification inform the evidence model rather than just the policy library, compliance becomes a byproduct of strong security operations -- not a parallel burden.
Organizations do not need more disconnected processes for managing risk. They need a way to connect what they detect, what they fix, and what they can prove in a way that stands up to regulatory scrutiny, board-level oversight -- and keeps pace with adversaries who operate at AI speed.
That is why Rapid7 is launching Cyber GRC: to help customers bring security operations, governance, and compliance into a single, continuous view so teams can reduce risk, improve readiness, and demonstrate progress with confidence.
For current clients, reach out to your account team to get early access to Rapid7's Cyber GRC solution and help shape what comes next.
⠀
Sources: IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 | Rapid7’s 2026 Global Threat Landscape Report | Verizon DBIR 2025
The average cyberattack costs for a small- or medium-size business is more than $250,000. The salary for a chief information security officer (CISO) is about the same, pulling in between $250,000 and $400,000, according to the annual 2026 CISO Report from Sophos and Cybersecurity Ventures. Small- and medium-size businesses (SMBs) know they cannot afford the salary, so they roll the dice, hoping they will not be attacked. This is a dangerous gamble that these businesses, which make up the backbone of the American economy, should not have to take. A virtual (vCISO) or fractional CISO (fCISO) can provide a practical solution.
As the American economy goes digital, SMBs now rely on the same building blocks as big enterprises — cloud services, payment systems, remote access, customer data, and other third-party vendors. But without senior cyber leadership, cybersecurity often becomes a patchwork of tools, checklists, insurance paperwork, and whatever guidance a vendor offers. That may get these companies through a questionnaire; it will not build real resilience. Nearly half, all reported cyber incidents, which is projected to cost the global economy $12.2 trillion annually by 2031, involve smaller firms.
The threat is growing in both size and sophistication. Adversaries are deploying AI to automate reconnaissance, develop malware, and run phishing campaigns at scale. This reduces the cost and skill needed to target smaller firms at volume. Adversaries are also collecting encrypted data with the intent to decrypt it later when they have access to large enough quantum computers. SMBs in defense, healthcare, and financial supply chains often hold sensitive credentials that provide access into larger enterprise environments, but most are not prepared to adopt quantum-resistant encryption.
SMBs generally understand they face cyber risk. The real gap is leadership: someone who can turn technical vulnerabilities into business decisions, set priorities, brief executives, prepare for audits, and hold vendors accountable. For more SMBs, hiring a full-time CISO is financially unrealistic.
A Virtual CISO provides remote, on-demand cybersecurity leadership and advice, typically supporting several organizations at the same time. A fractional CISO is a dedicated, part-time executive who is more deeply integrated into one organization’s governance, security planning, and day-to-day operations. Both models give smaller organizations access to senior-level cybersecurity expertise in a flexible, more affordable way than hiring a full-time CISO.
Washington should make it easier for SMBs to hire fractional cybersecurity leaders, because the private market is not closing this gap on its own. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) could help by publishing buyer guidance: vetted criteria for evaluating providers, example scopes of work and deliverables, and real-world case studies that show SMB owners what a high-quality vCISO or fCISO engagement should look like.
Clear guidance matters because many smaller firms cannot easily tell the difference between true cybersecurity leadership and a tool reseller, compliance-only consultant, or a generic managed services contract. Any vetted provider criteria should emphasize proven experience building and running security programs, independence from vendor incentives and product quotas, and the ability to tie security investment to real business risk, not just a list of certifications. Model scopes of work should also spell out the basics every engagement should deliver: an initial risk assessment, a prioritized remediation roadmap, and simple metrics that show whether security is improving over time. Without clear buyer criteria, federal efforts could end up funding low-quality services that add cost and paperwork without making companies safer.
The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) should recognize these CISO models in its SMB-focused Cybersecurity Framework guidance. That would help smaller firms turn the framework’s Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover functions into a clear, accountable leadership structure. This would make these roles less abstract: the point is not merely providing advice, but taking executive-level ownership of risk priorities, vendor oversight, incident readiness, and communication with the owner or board.
Congress and the Treasury Department should consider targeted tax incentives or credits for qualified cybersecurity leadership services, tied to measurable risk-reduction outcomes. Eligible activities could include completing a risk assessment, building a incident response plan, conducting vendor security reviews, running employee training, and producing a remediation roadmap. SMBs often defer cybersecurity because every dollar competes with payroll, inventory, and growth. A targeted incentive would make security leadership easier to justify as a business investment rather than an optional add-on.
Federal acquisition officials should require contractors that handle sensitive government data to show it has executive-level cybersecurity oversight, whether it is full-time, virtual, or fractional, and should extend that expectation down to relevant subcontractors and suppliers. This is necessary because SMBs serve as entry points into defense, healthcare, financial, and critical infrastructure supply chains.
Finally, CISA and the SBA should support vCISO- and fractional-CISO-led workforce training. Employees improve security when training comes with leadership, regular reinforcement, and clear accountability, not just annual awareness training. The aim is not to turn every SMB into a Fortune 500 security shop. It should be to give smaller firms access to the leadership they need before the next incident forces the issue.
Georgianna Shea, who is a Doctor of Computer Science, is chief technologist at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation and its Transformative Cyber Innovation Lab, where Cason Smith served as a summer 2025 intern. Cason is studying integrated information technology at the University of South Carolina.
The post The missing cybersecurity leader in small business appeared first on CyberScoop.
If you're a security leader operating in Germany, Austria, or Switzerland, you already know that compliance isn't a checkbox. It's a competitive differentiator. Rapid7 has completed BSI C5 Type 2 attestation for the Rapid7 Command Platform, including Threat Command, and it's a milestone worth unpacking.
This isn't just a badge on a webpage. It's proof that our security controls work, not just on paper, but in practice, over time.
The Cloud Computing Compliance Criteria Catalogue (C5) was developed by Germany's Federal Office for Information Security (BSI). It sets some of the most rigorous cloud security standards in the world, covering everything from data protection to operational transparency.
A Type 2 attestation is the gold standard within that framework. Unlike a point-in-time audit, Type 2 validates that security controls aren't just well-designed, but that they're actively working consistently over a sustained period. It's the difference between a security promise and a security proof.
For organizations in the DACH region, C5 is more than a nice-to-have. It's a procurement requirement for German federal agencies, critical infrastructure operators, healthcare institutions, and financial services firms. If you're operating in any of these sectors, your cloud providers need to meet this bar. Rapid7 now does.
Whether you're evaluating security vendors, managing compliance obligations, or looking to strengthen your organization's risk posture, the question is the same: How do you know your cloud security provider actually does what it says?
BSI C5 Type 2 attestation answers that question. It's independent, rigorous, and sustained over time. While rooted in German regulatory requirements, C5 is increasingly recognized as a benchmark for secure cloud operations across Europe. It's one of the clearest signals that a cloud provider has the operational maturity to handle sensitive environments.
The Rapid7 Command Platform unifies exposure management with detection and response, giving security teams clear visibility across their attack surface. Threat Command extends that protection further, identifying and helping remediate threats across the clear, deep, and dark web. Both are now independently validated against one of the world's toughest cloud security frameworks.
Trusting a security vendor shouldn't require a leap of faith. Independent validation exists so you have the evidence to make that call with confidence. This attestation reflects our continued investment in meeting the highest security standards for customers across Germany and the wider European market. Rapid7 has achieved a milestone that speaks directly to the conversations had every day with public sector and enterprise organizations who need more than a promise.
They need proof that a security provider's controls have been tested, verified, and proven to hold up over time. That's the kind of assurance that matters when the stakes are high.
Ready to see the Command Platform in action? Visit Rapid7.com for a free trial.
This webcast was originally aired on January 16, 2025. In this video, Kelli K. Tarala and CJ Cox discuss the challenges and strategies for improving governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) […]
The post GRC for Security Managers: From Checklists to Influence appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..
Risk is real. To better understand cybersecurity risk, let’s compare cyber risks to risks in the natural world from hurricanes. We can learn lessons from hurricanes and unnamed storms in […]
The post Cyber Risk Lessons We Can Learn From Hurricane Preparedness appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..
Tom Smith // At Black Hills Information Security (BHIS), we deal with all manner of clients, public and private. Until a month or two ago, though, we’d never dealt with […]
The post Why Do Car Dealers Need Cybersecurity Services? appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..
Login