Different frameworks guide cyber risk management -each with its own focus and adoption.
| Framework | Focus | Adoption / Use Case |
|---|---|---|
| NIST CSF 2.0 | Outcome-based, flexible, governance-driven | Widely used; adaptable to any sector |
| ISO/IEC 27001 | International ISMS, compliance & certification | Global; formal audits & certification |
| OCTAVE | Risk assessment, scenario-driven | Critical infrastructure & large orgs |
Helps organisations manage and reduce cybersecurity riskBased on recognised standards and best practiceProvides a clear method for assessing maturity and improving controlsWhat you need to do.
|
|
Categories (high-level outcomes):
Example: Define a supply chain risk policy requiring vendors to comply with ISO/IEC 27001.
Categories:
Example: Maintain an updated inventory of cloud servers and assess them for vulnerabilities quarterly.
Categories:
Example: Enforce multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all staff and provide annual phishing awareness training.
Categories:
Example: Use a SIEM system to detect unusual login attempts and analyse logs for signs of compromise.
(More to this in the last week with incident response)
Categories:
Example: Activate the incident response plan during a ransomware attack, isolate infected systems, and notify stakeholders.
Categories:
Example: Restore critical services from tested backups and update customers with regular recovery progress reports.

Pick the correct NIST CSF Function for each row.
| Control | Govern | Identify | Protect | Detect | Respond | Recover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Multi-factor authentication | ||||||
| 2. Asset inventory | ||||||
| 3. SIEM log analysis | ||||||
| 4. Backup restoration testing | ||||||
| 5. Security awareness training | ||||||
| 6. Patch management | ||||||
| 7. Vendor risk review | ||||||
| 8. Incident notification |
Describe an organisation’s posture against CSF outcomesassess, prioritise and communicate cybersecurity needsTypes of Profiles

Profiles describe what outcomes you achieve.
|
🔄 Continuous improvement cycle |
Tiers describe how mature your governance and processes are when achieving those outcomes.
|
➡️ Tiers = levels of maturity in governance & risk practices ➡️ Provide progressive targets for improving cybersecurity posture |
| Step | Action | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Review current alignment with CSF Functions & Categories | Understand present capabilities |
| 2 | Assign each Function/Category to a Tier (1-4) | Measure current maturity |
| 3 | Combine with business objectives | Define the Current Profile |
| 4 | Identify desired outcomes & maturity levels | Define the Target Profile |
| 5 | Compare Current vs Target | Identify gaps & required improvements |
| 6 | Document improvements in a roadmap | Action plan to move toward Target Profile |
A university IT department manages staff and student data. Backups exist but are not encrypted. Logs are collected but rarely monitored. There is no formal incident response plan.
Applying the CSF Profile and Tiers
| Step | What you do | Example for the university |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Review current alignment | Focus on PR.DS (Data Security) and RS.MA (Incident Management) |
| 2 | Assign Current Tiers | PR.DS = Tier 2 (basic controls) RS.MA = Tier 1 (ad hoc response) |
| 3 | Define Current Profile | Limited encryption and weak incident handling |
| 4 | Define Target Profile | PR.DS → Tier 3 (encrypted backups, monitoring) RS.MA → Tier 3 (formal IR plan and testing) |
| 5 | Identify gaps | No encryption, no IR plan, unclear roles |
| 6 | Create a roadmap | Q2: Implement encryption Q3–Q4: Develop IR plan, assign roles, test annually |
A small university department has limited budget and no dedicated SOC. Backups are done monthly, logs are collected but not reviewed, and there is no formal incident response plan. Basic MFA is enabled for staff.
Task: estimate the Current Tier and Target Tier for each CSF Category below.
| CSF Category | Current Tier (1-4) | Target Tier (1-4) | Gap / Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| PR.DS (Data Security) | |||
| DE.CM (Continuous Monitoring) | |||
| RS.MA (Incident Management) |
The NIST CSF defines what outcomes an organisation should achieve.
But it does not show:
The Cyber Defense Matrix to the rescue.
|
The Cyber Defense Matrix expands NIST CSF with a two‑dimensional model:
Purpose
|
|
Benefit: Security is embedded across all business units, not siloed in the SOC.
--- ## CSF Tiers - Mapping to [CMMI](https://cmmiinstitute.com) <p> The <strong>CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration)</strong> is a framework with five maturity levels. NIST CSF Tiers (four levels) align closely, both showing a progression from ad hoc processes → defined practices → continuous improvement. </p> <table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; border: 1px solid #ddd;"> <tr> <th style="text-align:left;">NIST CSF Tier</th> <th style="text-align:left;">CMMI Level</th> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Tier 4 - Adaptive</strong></td> <td>Level 4-5: Systematised / Optimised</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Tier 3 - Repeatable</strong></td> <td>Level 3: Formalised</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Tier 2 - Risk Informed</strong></td> <td>Level 2: Fragmented</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Tier 1 - Partial</strong></td> <td>Level 1: Random</td> </tr> </table>
Image (right)
--- ## Improving Cybersecurity Risk Communication <table style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; width:100%;"> <tr style="border: none;"> <td width="55%" style="vertical-align: top; border: none; padding-right: 16px;"> <ul> <li>Use CSF to <strong>understand, assess, prioritise, and communicate</strong> cyber risk</li> <li><strong>Bidirectional flow</strong>: Executives ↔ Managers ↔ Practitioners</li> <li><strong>Profiles & gap analysis</strong> provide shared language for priorities and resources</li> <li>Aligns actions with <strong>mission objectives</strong>, stakeholder expectations, and <strong>risk appetite</strong></li> <li>KPIs/KRIs reported upward; expectations/resources cascade downward; Profiles updated iteratively</li> </ul> </td> <td width="45%" style="vertical-align: top; border: none;"> <img src="../../figures/nistcom.png" alt="Two-way risk communication among executives, managers, and practitioners" width="100%" style="margin-top: 4px;"> </td> </tr> </table>