Security Consulting Firms

Modern IIoT systems demand a balance of safety, security, reliability, resilience, and privacy. This isn't just a tech challenge; it's a cultural one, bridging IT's obsession with privacy and OT's focus on safety. The 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐈𝐨𝐓 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐮𝐦’𝐬 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 (𝐈𝐈𝐒𝐅), first released in 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟔, is now on 𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟐.𝟎, with its latest update in 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟑. Over the years, it has evolved into a robust guide for securing IIoT systems, addressing the unique challenges of integrating IT and OT. The IISF is designed to help manufacturers build trustworthiness across systems by aligning safety, security, reliability, resilience, and privacy in a single framework. The 𝐈𝐨𝐓 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥 (𝐒𝐌𝐌), first released in 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖, is a structured framework that builds on the IISF’s principles by helping organizations assess and improve their security practices. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐝𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞? • Securing legacy (brownfield) environments alongside modern, cloud-integrated systems. • Bridging the gap between IT (focused on data security) and OT (focused on operational safety). • Equipping manufacturers with tools to assess risks, address gaps, and build actionable security roadmaps. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐓𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 • 𝐈𝐈𝐒𝐅 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 "𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭" 𝐚𝐧𝐝 "𝐖𝐡𝐲": It explains what security goals organizations should aim for and why they matter in an IIoT context. • 𝐒𝐌𝐌 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 "𝐇𝐨𝐰": It helps organizations evaluate their current security maturity, define targets based on IISF principles, and create actionable roadmaps to achieve those targets. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐔𝐬𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐭𝐡? Together, the IISF and SMM offer a top-down and bottom-up approach: • Start with the IISF to understand the overarching security needs for your IIoT systems. • Use the SMM to assess where you stand and implement practical improvements to achieve those needs. 𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐈𝐈𝐒𝐅:  https://lnkd.in/eypinq3G 𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐒𝐒𝐌: https://lnkd.in/e398Y9TU ******************************************* • Visit www.jeffwinterinsights.com for access to all my content and to stay current on Industry 4.0 and other cool tech trends • Ring the 🔔 for notifications!

How to Approach Mobile Penetration Testing: A Real-World Guide In today’s digital age, mobile applications are a cornerstone of many businesses, but they are also a prime target for attackers. Mobile penetration testing ensures these apps are secure, reliable, and resilient to cyber threats. Here’s how to approach it step-by-step: 1️⃣ Pre-engagement Phase • Define the scope: Android, iOS, or both? Native, web, or hybrid apps? • Set up testing tools: Static analysis (e.g., MobSF), dynamic analysis (e.g., Frida, Burp Suite), and reverse engineering (e.g., JADX). 2️⃣ Reconnaissance • Analyze the app store listing for permissions, version history, and potential clues. • Decompile the app to uncover hardcoded secrets, APIs, and other vulnerabilities. 3️⃣ Static Analysis • Review the codebase for: • Hardcoded credentials. • Insecure storage. • Weak cryptographic practices. • Audit permissions and configuration files for security misconfigurations. 4️⃣ Dynamic Analysis • Test the app on an emulator or physical device. • Intercept and analyze network traffic for sensitive data leaks or weak encryption. • Evaluate authentication and session management mechanisms. 5️⃣ Backend Testing • Assess APIs for vulnerabilities like insecure authorization, IDOR, and data exposure. • Check server configurations (e.g., SSL/TLS setup). 6️⃣ Device Testing • Check local storage for sensitive data. • Review secure storage mechanisms like Keychain/Keystore. • Test for clipboard exposure and file tampering vulnerabilities. 7️⃣ Exploitation • Bypass root/jailbreak detection. • Exploit vulnerabilities for privilege escalation or tampering. 8️⃣ Reporting • Document all findings with clear descriptions, proof-of-concept (PoC), and remediation steps. • Provide actionable recommendations to secure the app. 🛠 Key Tools: • Static Analysis: MobSF, Apktool, JADX. • Dynamic Testing: Frida, Burp Suite, mitmproxy. • Network Analysis: Wireshark, Netcat. What I learned this weekend: This weekend, I deep-dived into the fascinating world of mobile penetration testing. Understanding the real-world processes and tools involved has been eye-opening and invaluable for my skillset. What’s next? I’ll be posting a complete demo of me performing a full mobile penetration test on a demo app as a personal project! I’d love for you to watch, provide feedback, and share your thoughts on what I did right and what could be improved. Let’s learn and grow together! 💡 What’s your go-to tool or tip for mobile app security? Let’s discuss in the comments! #CyberSecurity #MobileSecurity #PenetrationTesting #AppSec #InfoSec #LinkedInNetworking

Chris Cochran just published something I've wanted to exist for two years: a structured, evidence-based way to measure where your organization actually stands on AI security, not where your roadmap slide says you'll be in 18 months. (Those are very different things, and most organizations know it.) The SANS Institute AI Security Maturity Model maps five stages across three pillars: Protect, Utilize, and Govern. Five stages sounds manageable until you read Stage 1 and recognize your org: no inventory, no policy, employees using ChatGPT on personal devices with sensitive data, and leadership unaware of the extent of it. If you're thinking "that's not us," the self-assessment on page 20 will either confirm that or quietly ruin your afternoon. Two ideas in this framework deserve more attention than they'll get: The Governance Floor Rule: your overall maturity score cannot be more than one stage higher than your Govern pillar. Organizations that build sophisticated AI security tooling without governance foundations aren't mature; they're just well-armed and ungoverned. (Attackers don't need a policy council. You do.) The distinction between BYOAI and Shadow AI is also sharper than anything I've seen elsewhere. BYOAI is employees using personal AI tools for work. Shadow AI only exists where policy exists, which means at Stage 1 there is no Shadow AI by definition because there’s nothing to violate. That nuance matters for how you measure your actual problem. The model aligns with NIST AI RMF, the EU AI Act, ISO 42001, OWASP AI Exchange, and CSA AICM. It's also mapped to specific SANS courses at each stage, so the gap between assessment and training path is about three clicks. Download it: https://lnkd.in/gty-u9RM Run the self-assessment. Be honest. (Self-reported capabilities without documentary evidence cap at a score of 2. That line alone will recalibrate a lot of Stage 3 claims.) Chris, be honest... did we look young at the 2025 AI Summit?

I created a Pentest Guide with a Complete Breakdown. Whether you're an aspiring Pentester or an organization looking for one, this will give you an understanding of what the service is and how it differs. Penetration Testing comes in all flavors, here is a breakdown: 🖥 White box | Gray box | Black box White box = your pentester has the keys, diagrams, and all kind of other information. This is great for an extremely thorough assessment. Gray box - your pentester has some information but not everything. They have the correct IPs and URLs to test, but they aren't totally informed. This would simulate an attacker that had "some" information about the org. Black box - you give them nothing. The tester starts at the perimeter and treats your org like a stranger. Slow, noisy, and excellent at revealing blind spots in detection and monitoring. 👮♂️ External vs Internal External - this tests the edge of your organization, such as internet-facing apps, VPNs, and other exposed services. Think "what can someone access from the outside". Internal - this assumes someone is already inside such as a phished employee or even a rogue contractor. It finds lateral-movement gaps, trusts, and privilege escalation paths. 🟣 🔴 Pentest | Red Team | Purple Team Pentest - this is a focused and scoped security assessment that is going to provide a list of findings and remediation. It's great for compliance and checklists. Red team - this is an adversary simulation. Longer, stealthy, multi-vector. Goal is to accomplish mission objectives such as exfiltrating data and persisting in the network) Purple team - this is when offensive teams and defensive teams are working together and learning in real time. Defense is watching for alerts while offense is moving within the network. 👁🗨 Other Scope Examples: Web app pentest — OWASP-style, auth, injection, business logic. Network pentest — host misconfigurations, open ports, weak services. Cloud pentest — IAM misconfigurations, improper S3 buckets, etc. API pentest — broken auth, object-level authorization flaws. Mobile pentest — reverse engineering, insecure storage, weak cert pinning. IoT/Embedded — firmware, radio protocols, physical interfaces. Social engineering / Phishing — usually an easy path in Physical — tailgating, badge cloning, on-site access. ✔ Before any pentest, you should be prepared to fix the findings. A penetration test does no good if your team is not ready to remediate. Please ♻ to help others learn about the practice of pentesting. ❓ Questions? My DMs are always open. #cybersecurity #informationsecurity #infosec #pentesting

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗜𝗘𝗖 𝟲𝟮𝟰𝟰𝟯-𝟮-𝟭:𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟰, 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺?  Did you know the latest International Society of Automation (ISA) IEC 62443-2-1:2024 update has reimagined how we build, run, and mature OT security programs? As someone obsessed with reducing OT risk and aligning cyber with operations, I had to dig deep into the new workflow—and there are some game-changers you can’t afford to miss: 🔎 Key Changes That Caught My Eye: 1. Eight Clear Security Program Elements: No more management-speak; real requirements, real-world impact. 2. Maturity Levels (ML1–ML4): Finally, a way to benchmark and show progress—no more guesswork. 3. Integrated ISMS: Seamless with ISO 27001, less duplication. 4. Supply Chain Clarity: Asset owners now have sharper tools to flow down requirements to suppliers and integrators. But what makes this update truly non-negotiable? 1. Asset inventory is foundational: You can’t secure what you can’t see. 2. Network segmentation is a must: No exceptions—this is your firewall against catastrophe. 3. Assume breach: The best programs focus on resilience and rapid, safe recovery—not just prevention. 4. Safety first: OT security must never undermine operational safety. Curious about the workflow? It’s all about continuous improvement—Plan, Do, Check, Act—but mapped specifically to the realities of IACS. Each 𝙎𝙚𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙢 𝙀𝙡𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 (𝙎𝙋𝙀) drives a tangible, testable outcome: 1️⃣ Org. Security: Governance, roles, supply chain, physical controls 2️⃣ Config. Mgmt: Asset inventory, secure baselines, change control 3️⃣ Network Security: Defensible architecture, zones, secure access 4️⃣ Component Security: Hardening, patching, removable media 5️⃣ Data Protection: Crypto, classification, secure disposal 6️⃣User Access Control: RBAC, MFA, least privilege 7️⃣ Incident Mgmt: Detection, response, OT playbooks 8️⃣ Availability: High-availability design, backup & recovery My Take: This isn’t just an evolution—it’s a blueprint for measurable OT security maturity. If you’re building or updating an IACS security program, this is the playbook to study. What’s your biggest challenge with aligning OT security to new standards? ❓ Have you started mapping your maturity level? 🔁 Like, repost, and follow for more deep dives into OT security and practical frameworks! Standard sample here: https://lnkd.in/g3S-RHEc #OTSecurity #IEC62443 #ICS #Cybersecurity #IndustrialCyber #Resilience #RiskManagement #ContinuousImprovement #SupplyChainSecurity

How would you stop a stealthy telecom APT like #SaltTyphoon? Most only react when it’s too late. After researching the Salt Typhoon exploit chain, from unpatched routers to covert data exfiltration. I developed a layered security architecture designed explicitly for telecom networks, integrating detection, hardening, and proactive validation at every stage. Here’s how I broke it down: 1️⃣ Edge Routers: Exploit attempts, such as CVE-2023-20198, demand firmware lockdown and a Suricata-based IDS. 2️⃣ Infrastructure Core: Rootkits like Demodex evade traditional detection — NDR and FS integrity checks are critical. 3️⃣ Lawful Intercept Systems: Often overlooked, these mediation layers need strict RBAC and mTLS. 4️⃣ CDR & Subscriber DBs: Protecting metadata isn’t just a compliance task — SQL behavior analytics and field-level tokenization help stop insider-style exfil. 5️⃣ Egress Channels (DNS/TLS): Covert exfiltration over DNS or TLS? We apply deception, beacon pattern detection, and strict egress control. But defense isn’t enough; that’s where X-SCAS comes in. Our platform simulates adversarial behaviors (rootkit drops, DNS tunnels, exploit attempts) to validate if your security controls truly work, not just on paper, but in live environments. Security assurance isn’t a checkbox — it’s an active, evolving commitment. I’ve included the architecture diagram that ties it all together — zone by zone, control by control. If you’re in telecom, infrastructure, or critical services, this might save you hours of design and maybe millions in breach costs. Would love your thoughts on how you are validating your defenses against today’s APTs? DM or Comment if you want a detailed guide on the attack analogy of the Salt typhoon cyber incident with detection, prevention, and hardening guidelines. Proud of the work that we do at #xecuritypulse X-LAB, in preparing practical use cases, aimed to secure National Infrastructure and complement the work of #CISA #tahasajid #Cybersecurity #TelecomSecurity #APTDefense #XSCAS #ThreatModeling #ZeroTrust #SaltTyphoon #5GSecurity #RedTeam #NetworkHardening #SecurityArchitecture #CISA #AIRANALLIANCE #3GPP #GSMA #ORAN

🔐 The A.G.E.N.T. Security Framework: A practical model for securing Agentic AI systems at enterprise scale. 🚨 Lots of orgs are flying blind into Agentic AI. Without a maturity model, chaos is inevitable. 👀 Introducing A.G.E.N.T. Security Framework 👇🏾 The A.G.E.N.T. Security Framework is a 5-phase guide I’ve build with other CISOs & Security Leaders which helped them move from AI chaos → clarity. The 5 Phases of A.G.E.N.T. 🕵🏾♀️ Awareness (A) Shadow AI adoption creates blind spots. Guardrails: governance councils, discovery tools, acceptable use. 🛡️ Governance (G) Copilots enter workflows; identity sprawl + data leakage risk explode. Guardrails: structured onboarding, scoped access, policy consistency. 🏗️ Engineering (E) Enterprises build “paved roads” with MCP servers, LLMs, APIs. Guardrails: sandbox testing, lifecycle governance, token management, version control. 🧭 Navigation (N) Semi-agentic AI starts acting in production. Guardrails: runtime policies, rollback paths, anomaly detection. 💪🏾 Trust (T) Even 95% accurate agents can cascade failures. Guardrails: human-in-loop for high-impact moves, escalation workflows, dashboards. ��� For CISOs & Tech Leaders: ✔️ Map your org against these 5 phases ✔️ Identify missing guardrails ✔️ Decide where to invest 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘳 💡 Lesson: Without guardrails, small cracks become systemic risks. With them, AI can scale securely without killing innovation. 👉🏾  Most orgs stall between Awareness & Governance. 👀 Want the full A.G.E.N.T. maturity playbook with risks + guardrails mapped? Comment “AGENT” and I’ll share it with you. Question for you: Which phase feels most real in your org today? (see infographics below) 👇🏾 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 🎙️ I’ll unpack this on the 𝗖𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗱 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗼𝗱𝗰𝗮𝘀𝘁 & 𝗔𝗜 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗼𝗱𝗰𝗮𝘀𝘁 next week -  available on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, LinkedIn. You can now Save 🔖 this post to revisit and come back later when you need to revisit in a easy place to find. 😎 If you're looking to keep up on latest AI strategy, security, and scalability: 🔹 Follow Ashish Rajan for insights tailored to CISOs & Security Practitioners ♻️ Repost to help others to cut through the noise around AI Security. #𝗔𝗜𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 #AI #Cybersecurity

Let me take you back to when I was working at Microsoft… I was visiting one of our enterprise customers to review their Azure architecture as part of my role. During our discussions, I noticed a familiar pattern they were replicating their on-prem networking strategy in Azure. Their approach? Creating multiple subnets for each workload, assuming this was the best way to achieve security and isolation. I sat down with their Architect Manager and explained why this might not be the best fit for Azure. I told him: "This traditional model introduces unnecessary complexity and doesn’t align with cloud best practices." Then I started to highlighted: ❌ Increased complexity as you will Managing hundreds of subnets was making network management unscalable. ❌ Operational overhead as the Troubleshooting network issues required deep subnet analysis. ❌ Rigid security model by Subnet-based isolation lacked flexibility for modern cloud security. After reviewing their architecture, I proposed a Modern Approach instead (I named like this 😊) ✅ Network Security Groups (NSGs) To enforce precise traffic filtering without excessive subnets. ✅ Private Endpoints To secure access to PaaS services without exposing public IPs. ✅ Application Security Groups (ASGs) To dynamically group workloads, simplifying NSG rule management. ✅ Azure Firewall To centralize security policies while maintaining Zero Trust principles. At first, there was resistance (as usual 😅) it’s not easy to challenge legacy thinking. But after some deep discussions and urge back-and-forths, we moved forward with this modern networking strategy. So let me know tell the impact after the implementation modern approach Firstly 50% Reduction in network complexity by Removing unnecessary subnets simplified management. Theb we gain Stronger Security Posture by Private Endpoints ensured no direct internet exposure As well as Improved Scalability by NSGs & ASGs allowed dynamic policy enforcement as workloads scaled. Finally we become Faster Deployment by Application teams no longer needed subnet approvals for each deployment. This experience was a reminder that on-prem strategies don’t always translate well to the cloud. In the end I want to say Not every workload needs its own subnet! But By leveraging NSGs, Private Endpoints, and ASGs, companies can build secure, scalable Azure architectures without unnecessary complexity. So, tell me honestly are you still using traditional subnet segmentation in your Azure architecture? 😉 #AzureNetworking #CloudSecurity #MicrosoftAzure #ZeroTrust #CloudArchitecture #DigitalTransformation #EnterpriseIT #CloudBestPractices

This network design features a dual-infrastructure setup using two different firewall platforms, FortiGate and Palo Alto, to provide redundancy and segmentation. The design aims to ensure high availability and robust security for a network with critical assets, likely belonging to a mid to large-sized enterprise. The network is connected to two Internet Service Providers (ISPs) labeled ISP-A and ISP-B. The connections are managed through two switches (SW-15 and SW-16) on the FortiGate side, and two other switches (SW-19 and SW-110) on the Palo Alto side. These switches act as the primary and backup points of entry for the internet traffic, ensuring that if one ISP fails, the other can still provide connectivity. This setup provides resilience and fault tolerance. On the FortiGate side, two FortiGate firewalls are deployed in a high-availability (HA) configuration. This setup means that one firewall will take over if the other fails, providing uninterrupted security services. The firewalls are connected to layer 3 switches (L3-SW7 and L3-SW13) which manage internal routing and distribution of traffic. The layer 2 switches (L2-SW13) underneath connect to end devices or servers, shown as VPCs. This segmentation allows the internal network to be divided into different VLANs (VLAN 10, 21, 22, 23), each with its IP subnet, offering isolation and traffic management according to the organization’s requirements. Similarly, on the Palo Alto side, there are two firewalls, also configured in HA. They are connected to a layer 3 switch (L3-SW8) that performs a similar role in routing and distributing traffic. VLANs (30, 31, 32, 33) are used here as well, indicating that the network is segmented based on functions or departments. This helps in controlling and securing traffic flows, as well as in implementing policies such as access control lists (ACLs) or quality of service (QoS). The purpose of this design is twofold: to provide high availability and to ensure security and segmentation across the enterprise network. By using two different firewall platforms, the design can leverage the strengths of each while maintaining a diverse security posture, which is often recommended to avoid single points of failure or uniform vulnerabilities. The VLAN segmentation helps in managing and isolating traffic, ensuring that security policies can be applied more granularly. Additionally, the HA configurations on both the FortiGate and Palo Alto sides prevent downtime during hardware failures, contributing to the network's resilience. This setup offers a scalable, secure, and resilient architecture capable of supporting a range of enterprise applications and services while maintaining strict security controls and high availability.

🔐 SECURITY BY DESIGN 🔐 Most security incidents don't happen because organizations lack security tools. They happen because security was considered too late. Security by Design is the practice of embedding security into every phase of the application, cloud, and infrastructure lifecycle — from requirements gathering to deployment and continuous monitoring. Instead of asking: ❌ "How do we secure it after it's built?" Security by Design asks: ✅ "How do we build it securely from day one?" I created this infographic as a practical guide covering the key areas security architects, cloud engineers, developers, DevSecOps engineers, and security teams should evaluate when reviewing an application or cloud-based solution. 📌 Key areas covered: 🔹 Requirements & Business Context - Business objectives - Regulatory requirements - Data classification - Security requirements 🔹 Architecture & Design Review - Threat Modeling - Trust Boundaries - Attack Surface Analysis - Security Architecture Patterns 🔹 Identity & Access Management - Authentication - Authorization - Least Privilege - Privileged Access Management - Federation & SSO 🔹 Data Security - Encryption at Rest - Encryption in Transit - Key Management - Data Retention - Data Classification 🔹 Application Security - OWASP Top 10 - Input Validation - Secure Coding Practices - API Security - Session Management 🔹 Cloud & Infrastructure Security - Network Segmentation - Security Groups - Kubernetes Security - Workload Protection - Secure Configurations 🔹 DevSecOps & SDLC - SAST - DAST - IaC Scanning - Dependency Management - CI/CD Security Gates 🔹 Monitoring & Incident Response - SIEM - Logging - Alerting - Threat Detection - Response Readiness 🔹 Third-Party & Supply Chain Security - Vendor Risk - Open-Source Dependencies - Software Supply Chain Controls One of the most important principles I have learned throughout my security journey: 🛡️ Security is not a phase. 🛡️ Security is not a tool. 🛡️ Security is not a checklist. Security is an engineering mindset that should be present in every design decision. When security becomes part of architecture rather than an afterthought, organizations build systems that are: ✅ More resilient ✅ Easier to maintain ✅ Easier to audit ✅ Better prepared for modern threats The earlier security is introduced, the lower the cost of fixing vulnerabilities and the higher the overall security posture. What additional checks or design-review questions do you typically include during Security by Design assessments? #CyberSecurity #SecurityByDesign #SecurityArchitecture #CloudSecurity #ApplicationSecurity #DevSecOps #ThreatModeling #ZeroTrust #IAM #SecureSDLC #OWASP #SecurityEngineering #InfoSec #CloudArchitecture #SecurityAssessment