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.
A well-prepared incident response program doesn’t begin when an incident is detected—it begins long before, through deliberate training, regular testing, and continuous evaluation. Incident management readiness activities are what ensure that the people, processes, and tools responsible for responding to security events are capable of performing under pressure. Their purpose is to validate that personnel can respond quickly and correctly when disruptions occur, and that the plan can be executed in a coordinated, timely, and complete manner. These activities allow organizations to identify weaknesses before real incidents cause harm. They also reinforce stakeholder confidence—internally and externally—that the organization is prepared to handle complex disruptions with professionalism and competence. Regulators and auditors increasingly expect to see proof of incident preparedness, including evidence of training, testing schedules, exercise outcomes, and tracked improvements. Readiness activities form the bridge between policy and practice, turning theory into repeatable action and enabling the security program to adapt and mature.
Training is the foundation of readiness. An effective training program must be built around clearly defined roles within the incident response process, with content customized to the responsibilities of each participant. Technical responders need to understand detection, triage, containment, and forensics procedures, while legal, compliance, and human resources personnel must know when and how to get involved, what data they may be asked to review, and how regulatory obligations affect decision-making. All participants should receive an overview of the incident lifecycle as defined by the organization—including how incidents are identified, escalated, documented, communicated, and resolved. Real-world scenarios should be used to increase situational awareness and make training more relevant. Staff should practice documenting decisions, communicating within the incident response team, and escalating to leadership or regulators when thresholds are met. Training must be delivered not just once, but continuously—through annual refreshers, ad hoc briefings when plans are updated, and onboarding for new hires so that readiness is embedded from day one.
Testing builds on training by providing the opportunity to simulate incident response procedures in controlled conditions. A range of test types can be used depending on the organization’s maturity, risk profile, and resources. Tabletop exercises involve walking through a hypothetical incident in a facilitated discussion, with participants asked to describe what actions they would take at each stage. These exercises are low-risk and highly informative for identifying gaps in understanding or coordination. Walkthroughs are more structured, involving a step-by-step review of documented response procedures with the personnel assigned to carry them out. These help ensure that documentation is current and that participants understand how to execute each task. Simulation tests go further by executing real response actions in a non-production environment. They test detection systems, ticketing platforms, communication channels, and recovery processes. Live-fire drills use red and blue teams to simulate an active adversary in real time, testing detection, response, and containment under pressure. Finally, communication-specific drills validate that contact trees, messaging workflows, and escalation procedures are operational, even when other parts of the response are not being tested.
Planning for an incident response test begins with defining the objectives. What do you want to learn? Do you want to evaluate how quickly an incident is detected? Do you want to test the escalation process across teams or validate that recovery actions meet time objectives? Once objectives are clear, you must select participants that reflect the full range of response roles—technical staff, business unit representatives, legal and compliance advisors, and leadership stakeholders. Scenarios must be realistic and reflect the organization’s current threat landscape, such as ransomware, insider misuse, or third-party compromise. Where possible, scenarios should incorporate recent events to increase relevance and engagement. Success criteria must be defined in advance so that test outcomes can be evaluated objectively. Rules of engagement should also be agreed upon—clarifying which actions are real, which are simulated, and what information will be disclosed during the exercise. Timing must be coordinated to avoid unnecessary operational disruption while still challenging the organization’s ability to respond during business-as-usual conditions.
Executing tabletop and simulation exercises requires structure and facilitation. During tabletop sessions, a facilitator presents the scenario in stages, prompting participants to describe how they would detect the incident, who they would notify, what actions they would take, and how they would coordinate with other teams. Role-playing should be encouraged, with participants speaking from the perspective of their assigned role. This helps simulate realistic dynamics and reveal issues such as decision-making bottlenecks or unclear responsibilities. In simulation exercises, recovery actions may be tested in sandboxed environments. Analysts and administrators perform their duties using actual tools and platforms, which may include initiating investigations, drafting communications, or restoring data from backup. Observers record the timing and accuracy of decisions, the quality of communication, and adherence to process. Deviations from the plan, gaps in documentation, or unclear instructions must be captured. Each test should conclude with a structured debrief session in which participants share feedback, highlight issues, and recommend improvements. This feedback is essential for meaningful refinement of the incident response program.
Evaluating performance after an exercise involves more than counting how many steps were completed. Key performance indicators should be used to assess the time it took to detect the incident, how quickly it was escalated, how soon containment occurred, and how accurately the incident was classified. Analysts must assess whether cross-functional coordination occurred as expected—did technical and business teams communicate clearly, escalate appropriately, and document their actions in a usable format? The evaluation should also review the tools and platforms used during the exercise. Were dashboards functional? Were alerts accessible and meaningful? Were the required systems available and in working order? Special attention should be given to where teams had to improvise due to missing or unclear documentation, out-of-date contact lists, or ambiguous instructions. These observations must be documented in detail, forming the basis for follow-up actions and future planning cycles.
Continuous improvement depends on structured analysis and disciplined follow-through. After each test, all findings should be captured, categorized, and reviewed with relevant stakeholders. Each issue must be assigned to an owner, and a deadline must be established for remediation. Without clear accountability, issues will persist into future exercises and reduce the credibility of the program. The incident response plan, contact lists, escalation procedures, and training materials should be updated as needed to reflect new insights. Key takeaways should be communicated to a broader audience—not just those who participated—so that lessons can be internalized across the organization. Where significant changes are made, follow-up exercises should be scheduled to validate that corrective actions have been effective and that new guidance is understood. Incident response is a team activity, and improvements only matter when they’re adopted by the people who will be called upon in real scenarios.
Measuring readiness over time requires a structured approach using both qualitative and quantitative metrics. Key performance indicators may include time to detect, time to contain, and time to recover—each compared to the organization’s objectives or past performance. Participant surveys are useful tools for gauging self-assessed readiness, understanding of roles, and confidence in procedures. Metrics should also track testing frequency—how often is each team or system involved in an exercise? Testing coverage—are all critical functions and platforms included? And completion rates—how many of the planned objectives were fully executed? Comparison to past tests and industry benchmarks provides useful context and helps identify areas of improvement. External assessments, such as audit findings or third-party penetration tests, can also be used to validate internal performance data and ensure that readiness claims are backed by independent evidence.
Governance and oversight ensure that incident response testing and training remain strategic priorities rather than isolated activities. A formal testing calendar should be established and approved by the organization’s security leadership. This calendar should define the scope, cadence, and types of exercises planned each year. Approval responsibilities must be clearly defined—who signs off on test content, who reviews reports, and who receives summaries. Legal, human resources, and compliance representatives must be involved to ensure that scenarios are consistent with policies and regulatory frameworks. Test results should be reported to executive leadership or incident response steering committees. These reports should include highlights, gaps, remediation plans, and proposed changes to program documentation. Readiness documentation—such as test plans, evaluation forms, attendance records, and after-action reports—must be maintained to support audits, certifications, and internal reviews.
Readiness must become part of the organization’s culture. Incident management is not something that can be learned once and filed away. It must be continuously reinforced through regular engagement, feedback, and leadership visibility. Employees at all levels should be encouraged to provide input, ask questions, and participate actively in training and exercises. High-performing individuals and teams should be recognized publicly to reinforce the value of preparedness and to motivate others. Training must be adapted to reflect evolving threats, changing business models, and new regulatory requirements. Testing must evolve from a compliance activity into a capability development tool. When testing and evaluation are treated as strategic assets, they become core components of the organization’s ability to anticipate, respond to, and recover from complex cyber threats.
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.