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.
Effective incident response begins with knowing what you're dealing with. Classification and categorization are foundational to how security teams interpret and act on security events. Without these structures, it becomes difficult to triage incidents properly, assign resources efficiently, or ensure that the most critical threats receive the right level of attention. The purpose of classification and categorization is to provide a consistent, repeatable way to understand the severity and nature of an incident. This consistency is critical not only during initial triage but throughout the entire incident lifecycle. It helps ensure that the right people are alerted at the right time, that regulatory reporting obligations are triggered when necessary, and that stakeholders receive clear and timely updates. These processes also allow organizations to improve over time by supporting post-incident analysis and the development of accurate metrics. Classification and categorization reduce ambiguity, enable informed decision-making, and form the bridge between detection and coordinated action.
Although the terms classification and categorization are sometimes used interchangeably, they refer to two distinct elements in the incident management process. Classification involves assigning a severity or impact level to an incident—such as critical, high, medium, or low—based on how much harm it could cause to the organization. This may reflect potential financial loss, system downtime, compliance exposure, or reputational damage. Categorization, on the other hand, refers to identifying the nature or type of the incident. Examples include malware infections, denial-of-service attacks, insider threats, or unauthorized access attempts. Both elements are necessary. Severity helps determine how quickly a response must be initiated and how many resources should be committed. Categorization helps teams understand which specific procedures, tools, or personnel are needed. Having clear definitions for both helps prevent confusion during high-pressure situations, ensures that incidents are routed correctly, and supports proper documentation. In short, classification tells you how bad the incident is, while categorization tells you what kind of problem it is.
To build an effective classification scheme, organizations need to define severity levels using objective, business-aligned criteria. These levels are typically based on three core dimensions: impact on operations, sensitivity of affected data, and scope of the disruption. A critical incident might involve a complete outage of a core service, the compromise of regulated data, or a security breach requiring notification to regulators or customers. A medium-level incident might involve a localized issue, a minor system anomaly, or a non-sensitive policy violation. Each severity level must include defined criteria so that analysts can make consistent decisions. These criteria should include clear examples, impact thresholds, and escalation protocols. Each level should also be linked to defined timeframes for response, as well as the decision-making authority needed to escalate or resolve the issue. Alignment with recognized frameworks, such as NIST or ISO 27035, helps provide credibility and ensures that classification structures support regulatory compliance. When done correctly, the classification scheme becomes the foundation for both operational decisions and risk management reporting.
While classification determines urgency, categorization provides context. Organizations should define a consistent set of incident categories that represent the most common and relevant threats to their environment. These typically include malware or ransomware infections, which are among the most widespread threats and can cause significant operational and financial damage. Unauthorized access attempts or credential compromises are another major category, requiring swift action to contain and investigate. Data loss, leakage, or exfiltration events—whether caused by attackers, insiders, or accidental disclosures—form a separate category that often triggers compliance requirements. Denial-of-service attacks, including distributed variants, are also common and can significantly disrupt availability. Physical security breaches and social engineering attempts, though often overlooked in technical environments, must also be included, as they often serve as the entry point for more complex threats. A comprehensive list of categories ensures that incidents are understood in the correct context, handled by the appropriate teams, and tracked in ways that support long-term improvement.
Although common categories provide a strong starting point, organizations must tailor their categorization models to fit their specific threat landscape, industry context, and operational structure. Sector-specific threats should be considered. For example, healthcare organizations may need categories for patient data breaches or unauthorized medical device access, while financial institutions may need to include payment fraud or regulatory reporting failures. Categories should align with existing detection tools and internal controls so that alerts and logs can be mapped directly to predefined incident types. Categories should also include insider threats, policy violations, and third-party incidents to ensure full coverage. Historical incident data is an excellent resource for refining categories. Analyzing past incidents can help identify missing categories, redundant definitions, or ambiguous groupings. Lastly, categories must support regulatory and contractual reporting obligations, such as breach notification under GDPR or HIPAA, ensuring that incidents are properly labeled and reported in accordance with legal requirements.
Once classification and categorization models are in place, they must be incorporated into the triage process. Severity should be assigned as early as possible, typically during the initial detection or intake phase. This allows the incident to be routed to the appropriate team with the correct level of urgency. Categorization should also be identified at this stage to ensure the right workflows are triggered. Predefined thresholds must be used to determine whether the incident should be escalated to legal counsel, executive leadership, or external regulators. The rationale for classification and categorization decisions should be clearly documented in ticketing systems or incident response platforms. This not only supports audit readiness but also enables future analysis and learning. As the incident unfolds, its classification and category may need to be updated. For example, what appears to be a minor phishing attempt may turn out to be part of a larger campaign involving credential theft and data exfiltration. The triage process must be flexible enough to accommodate this evolution while ensuring clear documentation at every step.
Integrating classification and categorization into broader incident response workflows requires tight coordination between technology, process, and training. Classification logic should be embedded directly into detection tools, such as intrusion detection systems or SIEM platforms, enabling automatic tagging of severity and category based on defined rules. Ticketing systems should support automated team assignments and escalation paths based on severity and incident type. Standard forms, checklists, and documentation templates must include fields for both classification and categorization so that they become a default part of incident handling. Training for incident responders should emphasize the correct use of classification schemes, including how to interpret criteria, how to apply labels, and when to escalate. Finally, classification data should be linked to incident metrics such as volume, response time, and resolution quality. This allows security teams to analyze trends, justify resource allocation, and demonstrate the value of the program.
Governance plays a critical role in sustaining classification and categorization as structured, reliable processes. Organizations must develop formal policy documents that define classification levels, categories, and the decision rules associated with each. These policies should be reviewed on a regular basis to account for changes in organizational structure, system architecture, or emerging threats. Approval from senior risk, audit, or incident response committees should be obtained to formalize the models and ensure that they align with enterprise risk appetite. Classification and categorization data must be stored with the associated incident records in centralized repositories. This allows for retrospective analysis, supports compliance investigations, and creates a reliable audit trail. The classification model should also be mapped to the broader risk management and compliance frameworks used by the organization, ensuring that terminology, thresholds, and response strategies are consistent across teams.
Despite the benefits of classification and categorization, organizations frequently face challenges in applying these models consistently. One of the most common problems is ambiguity in impact assessment. Analysts may lack the business context needed to determine the true severity of an incident, leading to misclassification. Overuse of certain labels, such as "critical" or "low," can create skewed reports and result in either overreaction or delayed response. In some cases, organizations fail to update their categorization schemes to include new threat types, such as supply chain compromises or cloud misconfigurations. Lack of coordination between technical and business functions can also lead to gaps, as the impact seen by IT may not match the concerns of leadership or compliance teams. These challenges can be addressed through training, predefined assessment criteria, and regular feedback loops based on incident reviews. Building these checks into the process reduces inconsistency and improves data quality over time.
When classification and categorization are applied consistently, they become powerful tools for organizational learning and improvement. Over time, incident data can be analyzed to identify which types of events occur most frequently and which are most difficult to manage. This helps pinpoint control gaps, procedural weaknesses, or technology limitations that require attention. Incident metrics presented to executive leadership can include both severity and category breakdowns, providing a clearer picture of risk exposure and organizational response. Patterns in classification data can inform changes to detection thresholds, alerting logic, and investment priorities. Structured categorization also supports readiness by helping teams prepare for the specific types of incidents they are most likely to face. Ultimately, classification and categorization are not just administrative tasks—they are strategic enablers that help organizations move from reactive firefighting to proactive, data-informed security management.
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.