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.
Structured communication is the foundation of a coordinated, confident incident response. Without a clear plan for how information will be shared during a security incident, even the most advanced detection tools or well-documented response procedures can fall short. The purpose of structured incident communication is to ensure that the right people receive the right information at the right time, regardless of how complex or fast-moving the event may be. It provides a framework that helps coordinate actions between technical teams, legal advisors, executives, and public communications leads. A structured approach supports regulatory compliance by ensuring notifications happen within required timeframes and through approved channels. It also protects the organization’s reputation by enabling accurate, timely messaging to stakeholders inside and outside the company. Perhaps most importantly, it reduces confusion, accelerates decision-making, and helps maintain trust—both internally and externally—when trust is most at risk.
Internal reporting mechanisms must be simple, reliable, and accessible across the organization. Employees, security analysts, and monitoring systems all need clearly defined procedures for reporting suspected or confirmed security events. These procedures should include the use of structured channels—such as a centralized ticketing system, a designated security incident email address, or a 24/7 reporting hotline. Staff must be trained to provide essential details at the time of reporting. This includes what was observed, who was involved, when and where the event occurred, and why it’s believed to be suspicious or malicious. The first line of defense often begins with someone noticing something unusual—so frontline employees need the knowledge and confidence to report issues quickly. Automated systems such as intrusion detection platforms should also be integrated with ticketing tools to ensure alerts are not lost or overlooked. Triage criteria must be established so that inbound reports are prioritized based on potential severity and relevance. These internal inputs form the foundation of the broader response, making their consistency and completeness essential to the process.
Escalation protocols ensure that incidents are handled at the appropriate level of the organization based on their severity, impact, and risk. A predefined set of severity levels should be used to trigger escalation—for example, low-level alerts might stay within a technical team, while critical events may require immediate notification of the executive team and legal counsel. Clear responsibilities must be assigned for making escalation decisions. These roles should be documented in the incident response plan and practiced regularly so that confusion doesn’t delay action during an actual event. Decision trees or flowcharts can help responders quickly determine when to escalate and whom to contact. For high-severity events, organizations must ensure 24/7 availability—whether through an on-call rotation, escalation matrix, or third-party support service. All escalation paths should be documented, including backup contacts and the order of notification. These paths must be tested during incident simulations to confirm they are practical, efficient, and current.
Notification requirements for stakeholders vary depending on the nature of the incident, its impact, and its scope. Internal stakeholders typically include IT operations, cybersecurity, legal, human resources, compliance, and public relations teams. The organization should use tiered notification strategies, where the breadth and urgency of communication increase based on the incident’s severity. Each notification must include essential information such as the incident timeline, affected systems or data, actions already taken, and what comes next. Communication should strike a balance between speed and accuracy—rushing to notify without verified facts can cause confusion, while waiting too long may breach contractual or regulatory obligations. Only designated personnel should be authorized to issue notifications. These individuals must follow established approval processes and use pre-approved templates where possible to ensure consistency and legal defensibility. Having a clear notification structure helps maintain focus, minimizes miscommunication, and ensures everyone receives the information they need to take appropriate action.
For many organizations, regulatory and contractual obligations play a major role in determining how and when notifications must be issued. Various data protection laws, such as the General Data Protection Regulation, mandate breach notifications within strict timelines—such as 72 hours of becoming aware of a breach. Other regulations, including sector-specific mandates in finance or healthcare, may require even faster reporting or more detailed disclosures. Contractual obligations may require informing customers or partners when specific systems are affected or when incidents threaten service delivery. Organizations must document these obligations in their incident response plan, including who is responsible for notification, what information must be included, and how delivery will be confirmed. Legal counsel must be consulted to determine whether a given incident meets the threshold for notification and whether reporting should occur proactively or reactively. To meet these demands, organizations must maintain updated notification templates, regulator contact lists, and customer communication protocols. Regulatory guidance can evolve, so these resources must be reviewed frequently and updated as needed.
Communication tools are the foundation that enables rapid, secure information exchange during incidents. These tools must be both secure and redundant. Organizations should avoid relying on systems that may be compromised during the incident—for example, if an email server is affected, an alternative encrypted messaging platform must be available. Secure collaboration platforms should be established in advance and restricted to authorized users. Pre-approved distribution lists for technical teams, executives, and external partners must be maintained and reviewed regularly. Tools should include the ability to monitor delivery status and confirm receipt, especially for time-sensitive messages. Communication outside these approved channels—such as informal chats, text messages, or personal email—should be avoided during incidents, as they can introduce legal risks or compromise sensitive information. All communication tools used during an incident should be included in the incident response plan, with roles and access clearly defined.
When incidents become public or high visibility, external communication becomes just as important as internal coordination. Public statements must be prepared with input from legal counsel, communications leads, and executive sponsors. These messages must be accurate, consistent, and aligned with known facts. Misleading or contradictory statements can damage trust and open the door to legal consequences. Transparency is important, but it must be balanced with security considerations and ongoing investigation needs. Crisis communication protocols should outline how and when to engage with the press, customers, partners, and regulators. These protocols should identify spokespersons, define message approval paths, and include a process for media monitoring and response. All public-facing statements must be documented, including the content, approval steps, and timing. This documentation ensures accountability and supports compliance with disclosure requirements.
Roles and responsibilities for communication must be clearly assigned and documented before incidents occur. An incident communications lead or liaison should be designated to oversee all aspects of internal and external messaging. This role coordinates updates, manages approval workflows, and ensures that messages align with organizational policies. Responsibilities should be divided based on function—technical updates may come from security or IT teams, while business impact summaries may come from operations or communications personnel. Legal and compliance teams must review all disclosures that involve sensitive data, regulatory triggers, or potential liability. Spokespersons should be identified in advance for both internal audiences, such as staff updates, and external audiences, including media or customer statements. Backup personnel must be assigned to cover each communication role in the event that a primary contact is unavailable. This redundancy is essential to ensure continuity and prevent delays.
Incident communication is a high-risk activity that faces several common challenges. One challenge is conflicting information from multiple sources. During early phases of an incident, different teams may have different understandings of what is happening, leading to contradictory updates. Another challenge is incomplete understanding of the incident’s scope. Without full context, messages may be misleading or speculative. Delays often occur because approval processes are unclear, or because key decision-makers are unavailable when messages need to be sent. Some organizations struggle with over-communication, where frequent updates overwhelm recipients, while others under-communicate, leaving stakeholders uninformed and frustrated. Communication channels themselves may also be at risk—using compromised systems or unsecured platforms can further escalate the incident. These challenges must be addressed through pre-defined communication workflows, training, and regular review of the communication process.
To ensure readiness, communication protocols must be tested and improved regularly. Tabletop exercises and incident response simulations should include realistic communication scenarios, requiring teams to send notifications, escalate issues, and make public statements as part of the drill. Message templates and escalation paths should be reviewed for clarity, relevance, and alignment with legal requirements. After each exercise or real-world incident, a post-event review should assess how well communication protocols worked. Were messages timely? Were audiences properly informed? Were approvals obtained quickly and consistently? Contact lists, tool configurations, and communication roles must be updated to reflect organizational changes. Communication is not just a supporting process—it is a core component of effective incident response. When tested and maintained regularly, it becomes a strategic asset that helps the organization recover faster, maintain trust, and comply with its legal and ethical obligations.
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.