Want to start with proactive cybersecurity? Here's 3 steps to do that today.

Interestingly, 'proactive cybersecurity' is often pitched as a problem that technology alone can completely solve, but in my experience, it usually isn’t.

I've had a lot of success using narratives, what I'd like to call 'threat scenarios'.

Using them as connective tissue between teams, sometimes with technology and sometimes without.

Always as a 'compass' to understand what are potential futures and pasts.

You can operationalize this through a 'library,' and I’ve broken down the key steps in this post so you can start building your own today.

Including basic components, how it could fit into your intel cycle and (more importantly) sharing some ideas how to integrating the library into your daily operations using structured simulations & continuous feedback loops.

Let's get started.

??

Why everyone should consider building a threat scenario library

Because we're in the business of decision-support, this topic deserves some specific attention.

For example, I meet with teams that have limited budget and think they should not be prioritizing this sort of activities.

They couldn't be more wrong and are truly missing out.

Here's 5 reasons why:

1. Cost-effective protection: For smaller teams with tight budgets, building a strong security posture is challenging. A threat scenario library provides well-researched scenarios, eliminating the need for expensive custom models. It’s a foundational tool that helps all teams anticipate and prepare for both common and emerging threats without needing costly consultancy input.
2. Quick learning: Teams just starting out or needing rapid improvement, these scenarios act as valuable learning tools. Each scenario serves as a hands-on module, guiding teams through real-world risk situations. This approach accelerates team maturity and strengthens response skills without the usual lengthy ramp-up.
3. Better decision support: When resources are limited, especially without access to large SOCs or in-house analysts, these scenarios provide essential context. They help teams visualize incidents, practice realistic strategies, and make confident decisions, refining their response plans over time.
4. Clearer stakeholder communication: Explaining cybersecurity risks to management or other non-technical stakeholders can be hard, but these scenarios bring clarity through narrative structures. They break down complex risks into understandable examples, making it easier for teams to convey potential impact and secure buy-in or resources.
5. Time savings and agility: In fast-paced, budget-conscious environments, having ready-to-use scenarios speeds up planning and response processes. Teams can focus on adapting scenarios to fit their needs rather than creating them from scratch, enabling quick and effective responses.

I can go on, except you probably start to see why this is a smart approach.

1/3. Getting started with libraries

Now, back to the how.

When starting an engagement, I often use a systems thinking approach to examine the existing libraries or knowledge repositories teams have built.

There are many factors to consider, but I always view this as a fundamental element to gauge how well the system performs.

You’d be surprised how frequently libraries are misaligned or poorly structured.

Teams often create something that works within their own constraints, but they fail to connect it to the broader system.

I believe this is a missed opportunity, especially when it comes to building a threat scenario library: multiple, integrated stakeholders are crucial for effective decision support and proactive cybersecurity.

Here's three questions I typically start from:

• Does your team leverage a central knowledge repository or library?
• How does your team ensure that they are continuously updated & aligned with the evolving needs of different stakeholders?
• What processes or feedback loops are in place to assess the effectiveness of your knowledge repositories?

This gives me a sense of elements in place, their status and current direction-of-travel.

Crucial components to get right

With any library, but most importantly with a threat scenario library, there's a few key things to get right.

Importantly, these aspects don't involve technology yet; that comes later.

These are as followed:

• Objective(s) of the library: For example, for training, incident response, or decision-making support.
• Scope: For example, needed to help tailor scenario content effectively.
• Stakeholders: For example, functions or people that are supported through use of the library. Please note that these could be different than those within your cyber threat intelligence stakeholder repository.
• Threat categorization framework: Explicitly define what you are using. This will help at later stages to interconnect different types of content. For example, leveraging industry standards like MITRE ATT&CK or NIST, while customizing categories based on the organization’s environment.
• Associated processes & procedures: Either link to or describe how the threat library is supposed to be used. Often, things are customized to an organization's environment, which could also include using a central knowledge base in a different platform. Make sure this is at a minimum correctly linked.

Components that provide bonus points:

• Asset register: The one illusive thing that nobody has a complete overview off. That said, knowing what data sources are accurate (best effort), yield great value.
• Risk profile: An organization’s risk profile is often an assessment of the exposure to potential risks (including scoring), helping decision-makers determine risk appetite (amongst other things).
• Intelligence collection management: Specified intelligence requirements, sources and potentially scoring. This helps at a later stage
• Development content repositories: Sometimes teams adopt DevSecOps or traditional development concepts like using GitLab or GitHub. For example, using these to store KQL queries or execution scripts.

Often components are fragmented, different components residing with different teams.

To make a system, you need all these parts to work together.

2/3. Utilizing scenarios for integration & simulation

This is where the technology discussion usually begins but as mentioned earlier: I'm a strong believer of thinking about process first - technology second.

Activities traditionally involve gathering intelligence from various sources such as internal reports, threat intelligence feeds, and cross-departmental insights to build a realistic foundation.

Next we analyze past incidents to understand attack patterns, TTPs, and consequences, using these to create relevant scenarios. We prioritize scenarios by mapping them to critical assets and business processes, ensuring alignment with organizational objectives.

Whichever solution you choose to support your library must be able to accommodate these steps.

Here's a few considerations to help you determine the best technology solution:

• How can the solution help me categorize threats systematically, such as dividing them into categories like external and internal threats, to structure the library effectively?
• How can the solution help us customize scenarios based on my organization’s risk profile to ensure they remain realistic and relevant?
• What data integration options are available to incorporate real-time data feeds and intelligence updates, maintaining scenario relevance?
• What centralized platform (e.g., GRC tools or knowledge management system) can I use to store the library, ensuring it remains accessible and secure?
• What risk do we assign to the actual platform we use to track these threat scenarios?

I've seen different teams end up in different places, here's a few examples:

• Microsoft oriented teams: Build out Azure-based repositories, using Microsoft's effective suite of development tools to drive this process.
• Atlassian oriented teams: Build out Confluence and Jira setups, with plugins for each of these platforms to integrate with data platforms.
• Google oriented teams: Build out structures in Google Workspace, using the effective file structures and integrated tools to connect everything.
• Different solutions but integrated data connectors: Different solutions, like common-of-the-shelf or web-based platforms, integrated through different API plugins.

The most important criteria are, and should always be, connection and accessibility.

If the solution doesn't leverage these two elements to aid the business bottom-line, then you're missing out on opportunities to become even more successful.

Now that you have defined why you are building the library, now you will start populating it with content.

Determining scenario structure that will be added to the library

Define your scenarios first.

This will be the taxonomy you use to communicate across different parts of your organization.

Here's a couple of ideas:

• Venation's open-sourced threat & risk scenario.
• Leverage MITRE ATT&CK based content.
• Risk statements according to ISACA.
• Alternatively, you create something custom that fits your needs.

The challenge often isn't creating a structure but building and maintaining these scenarios.

For this exact usecase, we've created our Scenario Intelligence repository: Instantly 30+ threat scenario templates which you can customize.

With our approach, teams can set everything up in under 10 minutes.

(if you want to know more, let me know!)

You populate scenarios according to your desired format.

To give you a simple, visual example how I explain the use of scenario's for risk and threat management:

Every stakeholder has a different usecase, except we all know and understand what's the main objective. In the case of the image, the objective is to build a penguin. In case of managing hundreds of ransomware strains, it could be preventing all of them from happening.

All involved stakeholders have a role to play in the 'system'. We annotate and tag this accordingly.

Through the use of sequences, we can begin to develop a narrative around how the different strains of ransomware actually will get into the environment. This will also allow us to have a discussion on where we can defend most effectively.

Finally, we include known adversary profiles or data/information sets to consider potential attack paths. Potentially integrating with other technology solutions that provide details.

Once we've prepared the scenario, we can either roll with that or go a step further and start visualizing it. I'm personally big fan of visualizations because that's how my brain works but its OK if your different.

Additionally, to establish them content-wise you can also perform a scenario planning exercise.

In the future, I will also make sure we do a separate system on scenario planning.

Sign-up for our newsletter at venation.digital/newsletter and you will be the first to have it.

One more thing - at this stage you can officially state that you have a Threat Model !

3/3. Using & maintaining your threat library

Using the scenarios for simulation

Making the scenarios is one thing, now you need to use them.

Usecases are numerous but to name a few:

1. Determine where the biggest bang-for-the-buck is when considering security investment.
2. Penetration testing specific aspects of the scenario or Red Teaming specific sequences or related business processes.
3. Breach & Attack Simulation of specific procedures used within a scenario (and then detect/hunt for it).
4. Crisis Management Exercises with your executives.
5. Scenario-driven security awareness on specific parts of the scenario.
6. Metrics & measurements on control performance and effectiveness , e.g. for regulatory compliance.

Running scenario simulations is crucial for testing and validating these scenarios, allowing different teams to practice and refine responses under controlled conditions.

For example, if you developed scenarios that are too generic then they will probably satisfy an audit requirement but won't add value; the added value is going beyond generic threat description by including variable aspects, such as multi-sequences of the attacks involving specific lateral movement or data exfiltration procedures.

This complexity enables you to test different variations, assessing team readiness for unexpected events and the effectiveness of control measures.

A cool aspect is incorporating decision points within scenarios where teams must choose between multiple options, simulating real-life pressures and testing decision-making capabilities.

A simple and effective method to do this is a tabletop exercises.

This lets you validate response actions and improve team coordination across functions, ensuring the scenario aligns with real-life possibilities.

We've published our approach to tabletops as a system in Venation PRO. For high-risk scenarios, I recommend conducting red team exercises or penetration tests.

These can simulate full attack sequences or replicate specific techniques, giving you a deeper understanding of how well-prepared your teams are.

Finally, review and refine your scenarios based on the insights and feedback gathered from each simulation.

Updating the content within your central threat scenario library ensures that it remains accurate, relevant, and effective.

Key parts to get right when it comes to maintenance

The threat scenario library must be a living resource that evolves with the threat landscape, continuously updated based on intelligence and feedback.

It thrives within a community, not an individual team.

It is crucial that teams have responsibilities assigned:

For instance, the CTI team might track actor behaviors and translate them into scenarios, while the GRC team ensures risk assessments align with those behaviors, and the detection engineering team confirms detection capabilities are in place.

Here's a few considerations about those responsibilities:

• Plan regular reviews and updates: Schedule quarterly reviews to update the library with new intelligence and inputs.
• Centralized management: Host the library in a secure, accessible platform like a GRC tool, Threat Intelligence Platform, or Confluence. Make sure all relevant teams have access.
• Feedback loop: Establish continuous feedback from training sessions, incident reviews, and simulations to refine scenarios. Use the OODA loop for quick adjustments.
• Performance tracking: Measure effectiveness using metrics such as response times, simulation success rates, and team readiness improvements.

Finally, remember that a library should be a bridge, not a silo.

It’s crucial to use it as a tool for connection across the organization.

Avoid keeping scenarios isolated within teams, just collaborate and share the narratives so everyone understands their role and where to find information.

Empower the organization by turning every scenario into opportunities to explore advantages to the business bottom-line.

Let's make this week count!

GJ

PS.

Enjoy this? ?? Repost it to your network and follow Gert-Jan Bruggink & Venation for more.

Want proven systems to make smarter decisions on managing digital risk?

Join our community of forward-thinking cybersecurity decision-makers today:

https://lnkd.in/eWwxc5bQ

#cybersecurity #systemsthinking #riskmanagement #decisionmaking #threatlibrary #threatscenarios #threatmanagement #threatmodeling