InfoSec Made Easy

After more than twenty years leading cybersecurity programs in global enterprises, I’ve seen sophisticated security architectures fail for one simple reason: no one was truly accountable . Technology does not fail in isolation—organizations do. GV.RR exists to eliminate the ambiguity that undermines even the most mature security programs by clearly defining who is responsible, who is accountable, and who has authority to make decisions about cybersecurity risk. In NIST CSF 2.0, GV.RR formalizes something CISOs have long known: governance without clear ownership is performative. What GV.RR Is GV.RR – Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities focuses on ensuring that cybersecurity responsibilities are clearly defined, assigned, communicated, and enforced across the organization. GV.RR answers leadership-level questions such as: Who owns cyber risk at the enterprise level? Who has authority to accept or transfer risk? How do responsibilities differ between IT, security, legal, complian...

After nearly two decades as a CISO in large, complex organizations, one truth has been constant: Most cybersecurity programs don’t fail because they lack controls—they fail because they lack a coherent risk strategy. NIST CSF 2.0 directly addresses this gap through GV.RM – Risk Management Strategy . If Organizational Context (GV.OC) defines what matters and why , * GV.RM defines how the organization makes consistent, repeatable, and defensible decisions about cyber risk . GV.RM is where cybersecurity governance becomes operationally real. What Risk Management Strategy (GV.RM) Is Under NIST CSF 2.0 , GV.RM focuses on defining, documenting, and governing how cybersecurity risk is identified, evaluated, prioritized, treated, and monitored in alignment with enterprise risk management. In practical terms, GV.RM answers questions executives ask—sometimes implicitly: How much cyber risk are we willing to accept? Who has the authority to accept, transfer, mitigate, or avoid risk? How do we ...

As a CISO in a large, global organization, I’ve learned that most cybersecurity failures are not caused by missing controls or weak tools. They are caused by misalignment —between security, business priorities, risk tolerance, and decision-making authority. That is precisely why NIST CSF 2.0 elevated governance and introduced greater clarity around Organizational Context (GV.OC) . GV.OC is not a documentation exercise. It is the discipline of ensuring cybersecurity risk management is firmly grounded in who the organization is, how it operates, and what truly matters to the business . When Organizational Context is weak, security programs drift. When it is strong, cybersecurity becomes an integrated business capability rather than a defensive cost center. What Organizational Context (GV.OC) Really Is In NIST CSF 2.0, GV.OC focuses on ensuring the organization’s mission, objectives, stakeholders, risk environment, and operating constraints are clearly understood and incorporated into ...

Generative AI is moving faster than most organizational control structures. Employees are already using tools like ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude, and image generators to write code, summarize documents, build presentations, and analyze data—often without security or legal review. Banning generative AI outright is rarely effective. Ignoring it is worse. What organizations need is a clear, enforceable Generative AI policy that: Enables productivity Protects sensitive data Manages legal, ethical, and security risk Aligns with a recognized framework The NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) provides a strong foundation for doing exactly that. Why Generative AI Policies Matter Generative AI introduces new risk categories that traditional IT or acceptable-use policies do not fully address: Data leakage through prompts and outputs Model hallucinations treated as fact Intellectual property exposure Bias and ethical risk Shadow AI adoption Regulatory and compliance gaps A well-designed pol...