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.
Security controls serve a fundamental purpose within any information security program: they exist to reduce the likelihood or impact of identified risks by putting safeguards in place that directly address threats and vulnerabilities. These controls also help enforce policy compliance and procedural consistency, ensuring that organizational rules are applied uniformly across systems and processes. Their design protects the core pillars of information security—confidentiality, integrity, and availability—by preventing unauthorized access, alteration, or disruption of data. Beyond internal effectiveness, controls are often required to meet external legal, regulatory, and contractual obligations, which may dictate minimum standards or specific control mechanisms. Ultimately, all controls should be selected and applied to support the broader security objectives of the organization, enabling risk-informed operations and supporting strategic business goals.
Information security controls are categorized based on their function and mode of enforcement. Preventive controls are designed to block incidents before they can occur, with common examples including strong access controls, multi-factor authentication, and network segmentation. Detective controls, by contrast, work to identify and alert teams to events that may indicate security issues—logging, intrusion detection systems, and anomaly monitoring tools fall into this category. Corrective controls come into play after an incident, helping restore normal operations through mechanisms such as backups, patches, or reconfiguration. In situations where standard controls are not feasible, compensating controls can be used to substitute an equivalent level of protection, provided the risk remains acceptably managed. All controls, regardless of function, can also be classified based on their nature as physical, technical, or administrative, offering a layered approach that spans the organization’s environments and systems.
Selecting the right controls begins with a solid understanding of organizational risk, driven by formal risk assessments and business impact analyses that reveal which assets and processes are most vulnerable. Controls must then be chosen to fulfill applicable compliance requirements, whether imposed by regulators, customers, or contractual obligations. Cost-effectiveness plays an important role—controls must offer sufficient protection relative to their cost, while still being operationally viable within the organization’s resource constraints. To maximize impact, preference should be given to controls that address the root causes of vulnerabilities rather than surface symptoms. Finally, the selection process must account for the maturity and complexity of the organization’s technology environment, ensuring that controls are both suitable and sustainable over time.
To ensure effectiveness, controls must be tightly aligned with the organization’s security objectives and risk treatment plans. Every control should directly support a specific mitigation strategy, rather than existing in isolation or as a checkbox. Controls should also be linked to organizational goals and mapped to critical processes, reinforcing business continuity and resilience. A layered approach—known as defense in depth—should be used to ensure that if one control fails, others are in place to contain the risk. It’s also important to verify that controls work in harmony and do not create conflicts or redundancy that undermine performance. Regular program reviews and audits are essential to validate that control design remains aligned with intended outcomes and that controls are functioning cohesively within the overall security architecture.
Frameworks and standards provide an essential reference for identifying, selecting, and justifying security controls. Documents such as ISO 27002 and NIST Special Publication 800-53 offer extensive catalogs of control options, organized by objective and system type. Organizations can map these controls to other models, such as COBIT or the CIS Controls, to assess whether they have sufficient coverage across operational domains. Where industry-specific regulations apply—such as the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act—controls must be selected and documented to ensure compliance. Leveraging recognized frameworks also supports audit readiness, as assessors are more likely to accept controls that are clearly mapped to well-understood standards. These frameworks also provide practical guidance on how to implement, monitor, and maintain controls in alignment with risk management best practices.
Even when using standard frameworks, organizations must customize control implementations to match their unique context. Control strength and scope should be tailored to asset classification, taking into account system criticality, data sensitivity, and exposure to external threats. Local factors such as available staffing, organizational culture, and user base capabilities must also influence how controls are designed and rolled out. Different approaches may be needed depending on whether controls are deployed in internal environments, cloud-based systems, or within third-party ecosystems. When modifying, omitting, or accepting risk instead of applying a control, the rationale must be documented clearly for review and accountability. Good control design also considers adaptability, ensuring that mechanisms can evolve with future changes in business models, threat landscapes, or technological platforms.
Designing strong controls requires adherence to a set of practical design principles. Simplicity is key—controls should be straightforward to implement, maintain, and understand, avoiding unnecessary complexity that can lead to failure or avoidance. At the same time, controls must provide adequate coverage, addressing multiple threat vectors or risk scenarios without becoming duplicative or bloated. Flexibility is also important, allowing the control to scale across different environments, technologies, and organizational structures. Resilience ensures that controls maintain their effectiveness during adverse conditions, whether those are system outages, attacks, or process disruptions. Finally, controls must be measurable—capable of being tested, audited, and monitored to validate performance and inform improvement decisions over time.
For controls to function properly, ownership and accountability must be clearly defined. Each control should have a designated owner who is responsible for its design, implementation, ongoing maintenance, and reporting. These responsibilities must be documented in role descriptions, operating procedures, or governance records so that expectations are transparent. Control accountability should be tied to performance reviews and compliance assessments, ensuring that effectiveness is continuously evaluated. In cases where controls are not functioning as expected, procedures must exist for raising exceptions, handling escalations, and applying temporary alternatives. Coordinating control responsibilities across teams—such as between IT, operations, and compliance—is essential to avoid gaps or overlap in execution.
Evaluating the effectiveness of controls is an ongoing process that requires a mix of indicators, assessments, and validation techniques. Key performance indicators can measure how well controls are operating, while key risk indicators reveal whether control performance is keeping risk within acceptable limits. Control testing—whether manual audits, automated scans, or targeted exercises—confirms that controls are in place and functioning as intended. Incident records and failure analyses offer insight into where controls may have failed or been circumvented, revealing areas for improvement. In addition, controls must be evaluated for how well users follow them and how effectively they are embedded into workflows. Periodic reviews are necessary to confirm that controls remain technically relevant, strategically aligned, and capable of supporting the program’s evolving goals.
Controls must be treated as dynamic components of the security ecosystem, not as one-time implementations. The selection and integration of controls should be embedded into system development lifecycles and change management processes so that security is considered from the start. As threats evolve, new technologies are adopted, or regulatory landscapes shift, controls must be re-evaluated and adapted accordingly. Scheduled reviews—monthly, quarterly, or annually depending on risk level—help ensure that control design remains appropriate and configurations stay current. When controls are no longer effective or necessary, they must be decommissioned in a controlled manner with full documentation and stakeholder awareness. This lifecycle approach ensures that controls remain responsive, effective, and aligned with the security program’s long-term strategy.
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.