Episode 55: Conducting Meaningful Post-Incident Reviews

Welcome to The Bare Metal Cyber CISM Prepcast. This series helps you prepare for the exam with focused explanations and practical context.
A post-incident review is the final step in the incident response lifecycle—but it may be the most critical in terms of organizational learning and long-term improvement. The purpose of a post-incident review, or PIR, is to identify exactly what happened during a security incident, understand why it happened, and determine how to prevent a similar event from occurring in the future. It moves beyond technical recovery and shifts the focus to analysis, reflection, and structured improvement. The PIR process is designed to clarify control failures, highlight process gaps, identify human errors, and assess the effectiveness of incident response plans. It allows the organization to document how performance measured against expectations and defined recovery objectives, such as containment time, detection speed, or restoration windows. Post-incident reviews are not only helpful—they are often required for audit, compliance, and governance purposes. Whether mandated by regulation or internal policy, they serve as a tool to show accountability, transparency, and maturity in managing cyber risk.
Timing and scope are two critical dimensions of a successful post-incident review. These reviews should be conducted as soon as possible after the incident is closed, while details are still fresh and participants are available to contribute insights. The review should address the full lifecycle of the incident—from detection and escalation through containment, eradication, recovery, and return to normal operations. Both technical execution and procedural compliance should be evaluated. That means not just asking what systems were affected, but how roles were performed, how communications were managed, and whether decision-making was timely and effective. PIRs should be conducted for all significant incidents—especially those involving confirmed breaches, major disruptions, or regulatory reporting. In some cases, reviews may also be appropriate for near misses, particularly when they reveal control weaknesses or unusual patterns. The scope of the PIR should be proportionate to the severity and business impact of the incident, ensuring that attention and resources are focused where they matter most.
A well-executed PIR requires the participation of multiple stakeholders. The review team should include core incident response personnel, such as analysts, coordinators, and investigators, along with system owners, IT operations staff, and representatives from any business units that were affected. Legal, compliance, and risk management should also be involved when applicable, especially in regulated industries or when third-party data is involved. A designated facilitator should lead the session to ensure that the conversation is structured, neutral, and focused on learning rather than blame. The facilitator’s role is to keep the discussion on track, probe for detail, and document insights as they emerge. Leadership participation is essential when the incident had significant reputational or operational consequences. Executive input helps contextualize the incident and ensures that remediation recommendations receive appropriate attention. Most importantly, the tone of the review should encourage open dialogue. Participants must feel safe to speak honestly about what went wrong and what could be improved. A culture of learning—not punishment—is what enables meaningful reviews to drive lasting change.
Data collection is the foundation of any thorough post-incident review. The team must gather all relevant documentation and evidence before the review begins. This includes system logs, incident timelines, investigation reports, ticketing system records, and communications from response teams. Forensic findings, if available, provide critical context for understanding root cause, attacker behavior, and system vulnerabilities. Threat intelligence artifacts, such as indicators of compromise and attack signatures, may also be reviewed to determine how detection and escalation were handled. Stakeholder feedback should be collected through surveys or interviews, allowing affected users or support teams to share their perspectives. Documentation of containment, eradication, and recovery actions must be reviewed alongside initial response plans and playbooks to assess whether procedures were followed and where they may have fallen short. All of this data should be aligned with the incident’s classification, escalation level, and any regulatory reporting that was required. Comprehensive data ensures that the PIR is not driven by opinion or memory—but by fact.
The review team should explore a core set of questions to guide discussion and surface actionable insights. First and foremost, what was the root cause of the incident? This means going beyond the immediate symptoms and identifying the underlying process, control, or behavior that failed. The team must ask whether there were indicators that were missed, ignored, or misinterpreted—and if so, why. Roles and responsibilities should be reviewed for clarity and effectiveness. Did everyone know what they were supposed to do? Did communication occur as planned? The group should assess whether documented procedures were followed, whether they were sufficient, and where they broke down. In addition to failures, the PIR should explore what worked well. Identifying strengths is just as important as identifying weaknesses, because those strengths can be leveraged, reinforced, and shared across the organization. These questions provide a structure for dissecting the incident and understanding both the technical and human dynamics at play.
Analysis of control effectiveness is one of the PIR’s most valuable outcomes. The team should evaluate how quickly the incident was detected, how rapidly it was escalated, and whether containment occurred within expected timelines. Recovery timelines should be reviewed against predefined recovery time objectives and compared to actual performance. The effectiveness of technical controls—such as intrusion detection systems, firewalls, access restrictions, or endpoint protections—must be assessed. Did the controls function as intended? Were they bypassed, misconfigured, or ignored? The PIR should also identify policy gaps, training failures, or awareness deficiencies that contributed to the incident. For example, if a phishing attack succeeded because an employee clicked on a malicious link, was there sufficient training? Was multifactor authentication enabled? Link failures to specific systems, tools, or behavioral patterns. This creates a clear line between security events and the controls that failed to prevent them—making it easier to define remediations and prioritize improvements.
Findings and lessons learned must be documented in a structured and consistent manner. The PIR report should include a summary of the incident, its root cause, and the business impact. Key findings should be listed clearly, with supporting evidence and references to source documentation. Control or process improvements should be highlighted and categorized by priority. Visual elements, such as timeline graphics or feedback summaries, help make the report more understandable for non-technical readers. The report should follow the organization’s existing incident documentation templates and contribute to the broader audit trail. Reports must be stored securely in systems that are accessible to risk managers, compliance leads, and IT stakeholders. When possible, link PIR findings to entries in the risk register or to dashboards that support security program oversight. These links create traceability and ensure that PIR outputs are not siloed but integrated into the larger risk and compliance ecosystem.
Every finding should lead to one or more defined remediation actions. These actions must have specific owners and deadlines. Assignments should be made to technical teams, process owners, training leads, or risk managers depending on the nature of the issue. Remediation items should include technical fixes, process revisions, documentation updates, and staff training where needed. Progress on action items should be tracked through governance mechanisms such as change control boards or risk committees. The organization must document any mitigation steps that have already been taken since the incident occurred. For example, if a system was patched or a firewall rule was changed, those actions must be recorded as part of the remediation log. Once items are closed, follow-up validation should occur through testing, inspection, or simulation. This ensures that actions are not only completed, but effective. Remediation must not be an open-ended process—it must have structure, visibility, and accountability.
The outcomes of the PIR must be communicated across the organization in a way that promotes awareness, learning, and resilience. Lessons learned should be shared with teams that may encounter similar issues, even if they were not involved in the original incident. In some cases, anonymized examples can be included in awareness training sessions or security briefings to reinforce key messages. Summaries of significant incidents should be shared with executives or boards to provide strategic context and demonstrate security program maturity. Transparency builds trust and fosters a culture of security, especially when organizations are honest about what went wrong and what they’re doing to improve. Communication also reinforces the importance of incident response planning and preparation, helping employees at all levels understand their role in the broader effort to protect organizational assets and data.
Finally, the insights generated by the PIR must be embedded into the ongoing evolution of the security program. This includes updating incident response plans, playbooks, training materials, and policies based on what was learned. Control frameworks may need to be updated, whether that involves refining detection rules, adding new audit requirements, or enhancing automation for specific event types. PIR insights should also be used to update the organization’s risk assessments and shape future security investments. If a trend emerges across multiple PIRs—such as repeated failures in endpoint detection or slow escalation paths—those themes should inform strategy. PIRs should themselves be reviewed periodically. Are the reviews timely? Are findings meaningful? Is action being taken? Treat post-incident analysis not just as a report, but as an engine of feedback that drives long-term resilience and security maturity.
Thanks for joining us for this episode of The Bare Metal Cyber CISM Prepcast. For more episodes, tools, and study support, visit us at Bare Metal Cyber dot com.

Episode 55: Conducting Meaningful Post-Incident Reviews
Broadcast by