Certified: The CISM Prepcast

Welcome to The Bare Metal Cyber CISM Prepcast. This series helps you prepare for the exam with focused explanations and practical context.
The purpose of an incident investigation is to bring clarity to complex security events by identifying what happened, how it happened, and what needs to be done in response. A thorough investigation determines the root cause, scope, and impact of a potential or confirmed incident. It validates whether an incident has occurred and classifies its severity based on evidence, not assumptions. This validation is essential because not every alert is an actual incident—and overreacting or underreacting can carry consequences. Investigations support evidence-based decision-making for containment, remediation, and communication. They also help determine whether legal, compliance, or contractual obligations have been triggered, including the need to notify regulators or affected parties. When conducted properly, investigations don’t just close incidents—they inform risk management, support improvements in controls, and contribute to an organization’s resilience against future threats.
Before beginning an investigation, it’s important to establish clear objectives. Investigators must confirm whether technical, legal, or policy boundaries were violated. In other words, did someone do something they weren’t authorized to do, and if so, how? The investigation must determine how the event occurred, what systems were involved, and how deeply the threat may have penetrated. Data impact is another key consideration—whether there was loss, unauthorized exposure, or corruption of sensitive or mission-critical information. Part of the investigation involves understanding the attacker’s methods and timeline—how they got in, how long they were present, and what tactics they used. Each of these findings contributes actionable intelligence that can guide containment, support recovery, and help design more effective prevention strategies in the future. Without a clear set of objectives, investigations can drift or overlook key evidence, leading to incomplete remediation or missed insights.
The investigation process typically begins after an incident alert or suspected event is triaged. At this point, a decision is made about whether a full investigation is warranted, based on severity, scope, and potential impact. When that threshold is met, investigators or investigative teams are assigned. These assignments should reflect the type and complexity of the incident—whether it’s a technical breach, policy violation, insider activity, or third-party compromise. One of the first steps after activation is containment—limiting the damage, preventing spread, and preserving evidence. This step must be balanced carefully so that recovery doesn’t destroy the data needed for analysis. Investigators then document known facts, working theories, and initial scoping details, including affected systems, suspected entry points, and potential data at risk. Objectives should be aligned with the organization’s incident response plan, regulatory environment, and overall risk priorities. Early documentation, containment, and role clarity are essential to ensure that the investigation progresses efficiently and credibly from the start.
Evidence collection is a core component of incident investigation and must be handled with care to preserve integrity and support possible legal action. Chain-of-custody practices must be followed from the moment evidence is acquired, ensuring that every handoff, storage decision, and analysis step is documented and traceable. Volatile data—such as memory contents, active processes, or live connections—should be prioritized, as these can disappear with a system reboot or natural system decay. Other sources of evidence include logs from firewalls, authentication systems, and endpoint protection platforms, as well as alert records, captured emails, downloaded files, and user activity reports. System snapshots may also be taken to capture current configurations and running conditions. All evidence must be gathered using approved tools and methods that avoid modifying or corrupting the original data. Once collected, evidence must be stored securely, with access limited to those involved in the investigation. Secure storage ensures that data can be used in internal reporting, legal defense, or regulatory submissions without questions of reliability.
A variety of investigation techniques and tools are used to extract insights from the evidence collected. One key technique is timeline reconstruction—mapping out the sequence of events from the initial compromise to detection and response. This helps understand attacker movement or internal missteps. Correlating logs from across systems is another common method, using SIEM platforms, endpoint detection tools, firewall records, and cloud activity logs to see how events align. Investigators analyze artifacts such as files, file hashes, registry entries, or scheduled tasks for signs of malware or unauthorized access. Metadata may reveal unusual file creation times, modified user accounts, or suspicious privilege escalation activity. Network analysis is used to detect command-and-control communications, lateral movement, or data exfiltration. Host forensics involves deeper examination of endpoints, looking for persistence mechanisms, tampering with local logs, or malware embedded in system files. Each tool or method used must support the investigation’s objective while preserving evidentiary integrity.
Root cause analysis is essential for understanding not just what happened, but why it happened. Structured methods such as the “Five Whys” technique or cause-and-effect diagrams help teams dig below surface symptoms. The goal is to identify the underlying process, control, or human failure that allowed the incident to occur or to go undetected. Initiating factors must be distinguished from enabling conditions. For example, malware entering through a phishing email is an initiating factor, but a lack of two-factor authentication or poor endpoint monitoring may be enabling conditions. The analysis should ask why existing controls failed or were bypassed. Was the firewall rule misconfigured? Was alert fatigue a factor? Were detection thresholds too high? Findings must be translated into risk language so they can be escalated through governance and risk reporting channels. This includes identifying control owners, proposing mitigation, and estimating residual risk. Root cause analysis ensures that incidents lead to change, not just closure.
Threat attribution and actor profiling may be part of the investigation when the organization needs to understand who was behind the incident. This process begins by assessing known indicators of compromise, such as malware signatures, infrastructure patterns, and attack behaviors. These are matched against threat intelligence databases and frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK. Analysts evaluate tactics, techniques, and procedures to determine whether they align with known threat actors or campaigns. This may help identify whether the attacker was internal, such as an employee or contractor; external, such as a criminal group or nation-state; or a third-party actor exploiting trusted relationships. Attribution also involves analyzing motives—whether the goal was data theft, sabotage, financial gain, or espionage. Actor profiling may include capability assessments, language clues, regional patterns, and targeting behaviors. While attribution is rarely conclusive, it provides insights that can shape long-term defense strategies, including patching priorities, third-party risk controls, and threat modeling updates.
Documentation and reporting must be comprehensive and structured to support accountability, learning, and compliance. An investigation log should be maintained throughout the process, recording every action, timestamp, tool used, and result. Systems examined, data collected, and the outcomes of each analysis step must be documented clearly. At the conclusion of the investigation, findings should be summarized in a final report. This report should outline the timeline, root cause, attacker methods, impacted systems, and remediation steps taken. It should also address unanswered questions, such as gaps in logging or missing confirmation of full data recovery. The report must be tailored to its audience. Executives need a high-level summary of business impact and lessons learned. Technical teams require detail on artifacts, vulnerabilities, and response procedures. Legal and regulatory teams need documentation that supports reporting and disclosure requirements. The report must meet standards for completeness, clarity, and traceability—ensuring it can be relied upon for internal reviews, regulatory inquiries, or legal action.
Legal, regulatory, and human resources considerations are often part of an investigation, especially when data protection, employee conduct, or third-party liability is involved. Legal counsel should be consulted early if the incident may result in litigation or regulatory scrutiny. In some cases, counsel may direct the investigation under legal privilege to shield findings from discovery. Investigators must assess whether breach notification thresholds have been met under laws such as GDPR, HIPAA, or state-level data breach statutes. HR involvement is essential when employee misconduct, insider threat, or policy violations are suspected. Investigators must coordinate closely with compliance teams to align findings with reporting obligations under contracts, industry frameworks, or board-level oversight. Every decision related to external disclosure or law enforcement involvement must be documented, including rationale, timing, and communication method. Legal and regulatory accuracy is not just about avoiding fines—it’s about maintaining trust with customers, partners, and regulators during a crisis.
The value of an incident investigation extends beyond immediate remediation. Findings must be fed back into the organization’s security program to drive long-term improvement. Threat models should be updated to reflect the techniques, tactics, and tools observed. Detection rules must be revised or expanded to catch similar events in the future. Control enhancements—whether new technologies, revised procedures, or configuration changes—must be prioritized and implemented. Leadership should be briefed on findings that impact risk posture, governance obligations, or strategic priorities. The risk register should be reviewed and updated to reflect any new threat exposures or gaps identified during the investigation. Lastly, findings should inform training and awareness programs so that both technical and non-technical teams are better prepared to prevent and respond to similar incidents. Lessons learned are only valuable if they are institutionalized—woven into documentation, reinforced through exercises, and used to strengthen readiness at every level.
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.