Author

Rob Demain, CEO, e2e-assure

Published

9 July 2026

Estimated Read time

5Mins

Rob Demain, CEO of e2e‑assure, explores whether critical national infrastructure (CNI) providers are truly ready to face today’s cyber‑attack threats.

Many critical national infrastructure (CNI) operators lack the ability to protect their infrastructure despite the UK being subjected to daily sub-threshold cyber attacks, according to the Strategic Defence Review 2025. It’s a situation that the Network and Information Systems (NIS) regulations, introduced back in 2018, sought to prevent. But since its inception, just over half of the operators of essential services have updated or strengthened their existing policies and processes, leaving many woefully unprotected.

In desperate need of reform, NIS is set to be superseded by the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill (CSRB), which is expected to become law later this year, at which point a consultation on implementation proposals will commence, followed by secondary legislation and an adjustment period for stakeholders. The bill will broaden the scope to include other organisations deemed critical to the national economy i.e. data centres, Managed Service Providers (MSPs) and critical suppliers. Plus, the government reserves the right to extend those categories still further as part of its ‘future proofing’, which will enable changes to be made to the act to accommodate emerging threats and potential targets.

New demands

All of these new entities will need to comply with the Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF), which lays out expected cybersecurity and resilience outcomes. First published in 2018 to support the NIS, it has undergone a number of revisions since, with v4.0 released in August 2025. This version places a far greater emphasis on proactive security and decision making based on real threat intelligence. As well as adding new contributing outcomes on understanding threats and secure software development and support, it also expands the sections on security monitoring and response and recovery, while an entirely new category has been added on threat hunting.

All of this points to a far greater emphasis on being able to demonstrate assurance and proactively monitor all aspects of CNI infrastructure and that means more scrutiny of both IT and Operational Technology (OT). Until recently, securing OT wasn’t seen as a priority. These systems were chiefly concerned with maintaining system availability and minimising downtime. But their increased integration with IT systems to connect with the industrial Internet of Things (IoT) and deliver real-time monitoring, for example, are exposing these systems to attack, with threat actors able to move laterally from one environment to the other.

The threat posed by IT/OT convergence is well known, but it continues to be the Achilles heel of CNI, as revealed by the Volt Typhoon attack. This saw Chinese nation state actors maintain persistence across CNI in the USA since at least 2021, through the use of Living off the Land techniques, illustrating just how insidious and sustained these attacks can be.

Securing IT/OT systems

It’s these types of threat the CAF addresses through its risk and asset management requirements. Organisations must risk assess systems with respect to their dependencies and interactions with other systems such as IT/OT, and document and understand those dependencies. But other complementary frameworks can also be used to map IT/OT systems security, such as the ISMS within ISO27001 from an IT perspective and IEC 62443 from the OT side, in addition to ISO/IEC 27019 for process control systems.

Being able to follow these frameworks will require organisations to increase their security monitoring of both IT and OT and the transparency of their processes. They will need to transition from being reactive to proactive, and become resilient and risk informed, which will mean many will have to change their approach. These are really the only options available to them in this respect if they are to move the resilience needle.

The first is to decentralise and harden OT systems while keeping them segregated from IT. However, hardening alone can’t keep pace with digital transformation. Many OT assets cannot support multi-factor authentication (MFA) or accommodate rapid patching because they are downtime sensitive. So, surface hardening alone won’t confer the resilience needed long term.

The second option is to manage IT and OT together by giving everything an identity in a converged environment, but to do that you need to move the monitoring of OT into the Security Operations Centre (SOC). Centralised monitoring allows threats to be detected across both IT and OT networks, for teams to monitor east-west traffic, and to correlate alerts that might otherwise appear unrelated. And it’s this centralised management that will provide the visibility and control needed to improve IT/OT resilience.

Converged security

Such a converged SOC doesn’t just offer continuous visibility over IT, industrial control systems (ICS), OT and cloud environs, but also the real-time triage of critical alerts. These might include unauthorised PLC logic changes, unsafe set-point writes, abnormal OT protocol behaviour, lateral movement in ICS DMZs, OT malware, or unauthorised remote access into OT environments. These alerts are then grouped by operational impact, such as whether they present a safety critical risk or could lead to service degradation, so that they can be prioritised. Weekly threat hunts and detection surface validation over distributed environments provide the threat hunting capabilities needed to meet the CAF requirements and the SOC evidences, and provides that all important audit-ready compliance mapping to meet the demands of other frameworks too, such as IEC 62443, and ISO/IEC 27019.

Whether standing up a converged SOC internally or outsourcing, this capability is the most efficient way to adapt to the tightening regulations, particularly as we can expect ‘future proofing’ to lead to yet more demands. The emphasis is now firmly focused on the proactive monitoring of both IT and OT systems together, given their growing dependencies, so it makes sense for those organisations in scope – as well as those who could soon be – to begin to move their OT monitoring from the plant and into the all-seeing, all-knowing enclave of the SOC.

By Rob Demain, CEO, e2e-assure

  • Cybersecurity
  • Infrastructure & Cloud

Author

Chris Gunner

Published

4 March 2026

Estimated Read time

4Mins

Chris Gunner, vCSO at Thrive – a leading NextGen MSP/MSSP, delivering global AI, cybersecurity, cloud, compliance, and digital transformation managed services – on how CISOs can position their cyber strategy to to become part of how a business navigates uncertainty

Quantification of cyber risk is a growing trend. While this can be genuinely useful, in practice it is often misunderstood or over-applied by security leaders. It can range from an arbitrary figure to attempting to model every possible risk on the register in a Monte Carlo simulation. The focus can fall on the mechanics of quantification, rather than how financial decision-makers actually use the information.

Think of the CFO – they don’t walk through every penny in the budget. Instead, they usually focus on the board-level levers that can materially affect the business. These often include three key areas: strategic optionality, removing friction from capital events and avoiding shocks and smoothing operating costs. Security conversations should be anchored the same way.

The Importance of Strategic Optionality

If faced with a credible one-year growth plan, CFOs may recommend a one-year office lease despite a 20% premium. This is because it maintains the option later of moving or re-contracting once the growth trajectory becomes more visible. Like most strategic decisions, it is about preserving flexibility in the face of uncertainty, even if that flexibility comes at a short-term cost.

If we apply this to a cyber context, there are often businesses that have taken a calculated gamble with their existing business strategies. While the plan is sound, there is a chance it might not land as expected. When they require security services, the choice between a ‘standard’ and ‘premium’ SOC frames the decision as one of optionality rather than security spend. Paying more now to preserve the ability to adapt later down the line. A simple illustration is incident response. An on-call retainer with defined response times can look more expensive than ad hoc support. Until an incident occurs and procurement becomes the bottleneck. In those moments, flexibility is often far more valuable than marginal savings achieved earlier.

Removing Friction from Capital Events

For CFOs, especially those operating in the alternative investment space, the focus is on structuring capital events. As opposed to managing day-to-day operational costs. One of the most painful points in that process is due diligence. The careful exchange between acquirer and target that aims to provide enough information for each to price risk, without giving the entire game away.

CISOs can materially influence how smooth or painful that process becomes. The most effective support often comes from understanding upfront what the diligence process will look like and preparing accordingly.

For example, they might develop executive-level ‘Security at ACME’ overviews to sit alongside more detailed trust centre or technical reports. Being available to diligence teams for interviews, and for example clearly articulating which services are outsourced to an MSSP, and why, builds credibility between those executive teams.

Decision-makers often don’t look at penetration test reports at a deal level. They are assessing whether the organisation understands its own control environment. A well-prepared CISO who can clearly explain why certain controls exist acts as a trust amplifier during transactions.

It is often the difference between a diligence process that closes cleanly and one that drifts. Two organisations can have similar maturity. Yet the one that can respond within a day with clear, consistent evidence reduces follow-up questions, avoids uncertainty premiums in pricing discussions and prevents security from becoming a late-stage negotiation point.

Avoiding Shocks and Smoothing Operating Costs

For any individual who has worked with a finance partner to define a departmental budget will know that predictability often takes precedence over absolute cost. Contract value can be secondary to payment terms, renewal timing or the ability to forecast spend with confidence.

CISOs can align with this by looking to reduce unplanned operating expenditure. In addition to understanding the cost structure of their controls by communicating with the technical pre-sales engineer, procurement and account teams.

A good example is cyber insurance. While often purchased directly by finance teams, many policies are relatively off-the-shelf and provide access to services the security team already operates or has under contract. Other policies include notable exclusions for the events most likely to occur. Such as a ransomware incident without business interruption cover. In many cases, these gaps can be addressed in-policy with a flat fee or a more predictable cost model.

The value here extends beyond risk transfer and into more predictable costs: replacing reactive spend with planned expenditure.

Aligning Cyber Conversations to Board Priorities

Across all of the above examples, the common thread is that the board is rarely asking security to prove its value in isolation, and is surprisingly comfortable with uncertainty. But they are asking whether the cyber papers support better decisions, fewer constraints and more predictable outcomes for the business as a whole.

CISOs who frame their priorities in those terms will find their conversations move away from justifying individual controls and towards understanding how security choices shape the organisation’s ability to respond to change. In that context, cyber becomes part of how the business navigates uncertainty, rather than a specialist function defending its budget. Speaking the board’s language, ultimately, is less about converting cyber risk into pounds and pence. It is more about understanding which levers matter at that level and showing how security choices influence them.

Learn more at thrivenextgen.com

  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Digital Strategy

Author

Ben Francis

Published

9 January 2026

Estimated Read time

4Mins

Ben Francis, Insurance Lead at Risk Ledger, on navigating cyber threats by reinforcing security from the inside out

Cyber insurance has evolved from a straightforward risk transfer mechanism into an integral component of enterprise risk strategy. As a result, the conversation has shifted beyond simply securing coverage to embracing three foundational elements: transparency in risk exposure, accountability for security measures, and active collaboration throughout the digital ecosystem.

Rather than asking ‘are you covered?’, the more pertinent question has become ‘can you demonstrate measurable risk reduction?’. Insurers and insureds alike are recognising that what matters now is how well an organisation understands and manages its digital exposure, especially across its extended supply chain. Recent data reveals that 46% of organisations experienced at least two separate supply chain-related cyber incidents in the past year, a clear sign that exposure often lies beyond direct control. 

From Risk Transfer to Risk Visibility 

In recent years, the cyber insurance market has matured significantly. Once viewed as a reactive safety net to cushion the financial impact of attacks, it is now becoming a proactive tool for managing and mitigating risk. This shift is partly driven by insurers, who increasingly expect and work with organisations to demonstrate strong security practices and a nuanced understanding of their threat landscape, including risks deep within their digital supply chains; an area where many businesses still fall short.

At the same time, the industry faces a growing challenge from systemic cyber risk within their portfolios, as many businesses rely on the same cloud providers, payment systems and digital platforms, increasing the chance of a single point of failure. Insurers must gain visibility into how policyholders are connected, not only to suppliers but to each other. Tools and frameworks that map and monitor these interconnections will be essential to avoid underestimating the wider impact of seemingly isolated cyber events.

Mapping Beyond Third Parties

It is no secret that cyber attackers often target the weakest link in a supply chain. These are not always direct suppliers, but fourth, fifth or even sixth-tier vendors that have indirect but critical access to systems and data. Unfortunately, many organisations lack visibility beyond their first tier, creating blind spots that attackers can easily exploit. From an insurance perspective, this presents a clear challenge. If an organisation cannot account for who it is connected to, it cannot adequately quantify its risk and neither can its insurer. Mapping these extended connections is more than just a technical exercise; it means actively practiced risk governance and responsibility. Insurers increasingly want to know how their policyholders are identifying and managing indirect dependencies, particularly in sectors like financial services and retail where disruption can ripple across entire markets.

Collaboration as a Risk Strategy 

One of the more underappreciated aspects of cyber resilience is the role of peer collaboration. Unlike physical incidents, cyber threats rarely exist in isolation. A single compromised vendor can impact multiple organisations simultaneously, a fact that has been highlighted by high-profile supply chain attacks such as SolarWinds and MOVEit. 

As a result, businesses need to think beyond their own perimeters and adopt a more collective mindset. This includes building relationships with industry peers, sharing threat intelligence and participating in sector-wide initiatives aimed at improving visibility and preparedness. 

In highly regulated sectors, such as insurance, this collaboration is increasingly being encouraged by oversight bodies. Frameworks like the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) in the EU and initiatives from the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK are pushing for more transparency around third-party risk. In this context, openness is no longer optional; it will be a regulatory expectation. 

For insurance providers, greater collaboration between policyholders also means better data on emerging threats and more accurate portfolio management. For businesses, it offers a chance to anticipate vulnerabilities that may not yet have hit their own networks but are affecting others in their industry. 

Proactive Transparency Builds Trust 

Organisations that take a proactive, transparent approach to cyber risk management are more likely to secure cover and potentially favourable terms, not just in terms of premiums, but also in access to additional services such as forensic support, incident response sources and legal counsel. 

Demonstrating a mature cyber posture is not about claiming perfection. No organisation is immune to breaches. What insurers are looking for is evidence of a structured approach: the existence of incident response plans, robust governance, effective supply chain risk management, and above all, an honest view of risk. 

A Shift in Mindset 

Ultimately, our understanding of cyber insurance must keep evolving. It should not be treated as a simple checkbox exercise, but as a collaborative relationship between insurers and the organisations they support – one built on shared insight, clear communication, and a drive for continuous improvement.

The organisations best equipped to navigate today’s threats will be those that prioritise transparency. Not only does it lead to stronger protection, but it also builds a culture of accountability that reinforces security from the inside out.

Learn more at riskledger.com

  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Digital Strategy
  • Fintech & Insurtech
  • InsurTech