Audit Checkpoint Sends CISO Into Eye-Cleaning Protocol

Decisions 3 today

The business responds

• OT / Grid Operations heard that the fly wanted more information on “Regulatory audit: checkpoint” and refused, loudly enough to be heard two floors down. They cooled on the fly a little.

  “More information is not a ruling. Name the evidence, reviewers, deadline, and confirm that Grid Operations approves any action or escalation.”

  OT / Grid Operations Pushed back trust -1

  Next, they want: “Send the narrowly scoped audit review plan today, with affected assets, evidence sources, named reviewers, no production changes, and Grid Operations approval before any action or escalation.” They have already asked for a slot in the fly's diary.

• Legal / Compliance heard that the fly wanted more information on “Regulatory audit: checkpoint” and refused, loudly enough to be heard two floors down. They cooled on the fly a little.

  “Demanding more information is reasonable. Explaining it with grooming neurons is not a decision record I can tender to a regulator.”

  Legal / Compliance Pushed back trust -2

  Next, they want: “Provide the written decision record, preservation notice, and counsel-reviewed notification assessment by end of day.” Expect an email.

• When the fly wanted more information on “Regulatory audit: checkpoint”, Finance dug in its heels. They cooled on the fly a little.

  “A checkpoint is not an audit plan. Please send the notice scope, mandatory actions, cost range, budget ceiling, and decision date, preferably before the auditors discover them.”

  Finance Pushed back trust -1

  Next, they want: “Provide the complete audit evidence inventory and named owners by 3 p.m.” Expect an email.

• International Communications heard that the fly backed away from “Company-wide phishing simulation programme” and refused, loudly enough to be heard two floors down. They cooled on the fly a little.

  “A company-wide phishing simulation is not improved by waiting until the audit discovers we have never agreed on one.”

  International Communications Pushed back trust -1

  Next, they want: “Please provide a decision date and a communications-safe pilot scope before the auditors ask us about it.” Expect an email.

• When the fly wanted more information on “IT / Infrastructure asks: A 30-minute review hold, then I will provide the current-state dependency map and a phased patch plan.”, IT / Infrastructure agreed in principle, then started haggling over every detail. They warmed to the fly, very slightly.

  “Fine. We will bring the dependency map and patch plan, provided the review hold remains 30 minutes and does not become an archaeological expedition.”

  IT / Infrastructure Negotiated trust +1

  Next, they want: “Confirm the 30-minute review hold and limit the requested information to audit-relevant dependencies and phasing.” Expect an email.

Diary

• OT / Grid Operations: “Request a narrowly scoped information list and review plan, with Grid Operations approving any replacement access process before board escalation.” One-to-one · dropped

  Back on day 6, OT / Grid Operations asked for a one-to-one with the fly about “Request a narrowly scoped information list and review plan, with Grid Operations approving any replacement access process before board escalation”. It was postponed once, and today it quietly vanished from the calendar. Nobody has asked where it went.

• OT/SCADA zero-day disclosure: incident war-room War room · dropped

  Back on day 8, OT / Grid Operations, IT / Infrastructure and Legal / Compliance asked for an incident war-room. It was postponed once, and today it quietly vanished from the calendar. Nobody has asked where it went.

• OT/SCADA zero-day disclosure: incident war-room War room · dropped

  Back on day 10, OT / Grid Operations, IT / Infrastructure and Legal / Compliance asked for an incident war-room. It was postponed once, and today it quietly vanished from the calendar. Nobody has asked where it went.

What each department thinks of the fly