Skip to main content

When Leadership Says “Keep Us Safe”: Finding Cyber Risk Tolerance in the 10-K

 One of the most common questions cybersecurity professionals ask executive leadership is:

“What is the organization’s risk tolerance when it comes to cyber risk?”

And one of the most common answers they get back is:

“Keep us safe.”

“Don’t let a breach happen.”

While well-intended, these answers don’t actually define risk tolerance. No organization can be perfectly safe, and “no breaches ever” isn’t a strategy—it’s a hope. When leadership can’t (or won’t) clearly articulate cyber risk tolerance, you need to look elsewhere for clues.

One of the most useful—and often overlooked—places to find them is the company’s 10-K report.


Why Risk Tolerance Matters


Risk tolerance drives real decisions:

  • How much downtime is acceptable?
  • How much data exposure is tolerable?
  • How much money should be spent on security controls?
  • Which risks are accepted versus mitigated?

Without understanding leadership’s tolerance, security teams either over-invest (creating friction and wasted spend) or under-protect (creating unacceptable exposure).


The 10-K: Executive Risk Thinking, in Writing


A public company’s 10-K is an annual filing that details financial performance, business operations, and—most importantly for security leaders—risk factors. These disclosures are reviewed by legal teams and executive leadership, which means they reflect what leadership is willing to formally acknowledge as material risk.

When you read the 10-K, focus on:

  • Risk Factors section
  • Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A)
  • Any section referencing cybersecurity, data breaches, operational disruption, or regulatory exposure

Pay attention to:

  • How strongly cyber risk is worded
  • Whether breaches or data loss are explicitly mentioned
Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Asset Management - Physical Devices - What do you have? Do you know?

Asset management and inventorying your physical systems, we all know we should do it, and I am sure most try.  I am not going to talk about the should have, would have or could have. Instead, I am going to focus on the risks associated with the NIST CSF control ID-AM.1.   The control simply states, “Physical devices and systems within the organization are inventoried.”  At the simplest level, this control is saying that the organization inventories all physical systems that are apart of the information system. In my opinion, the control is foundational because how can you secure something if you don't know it exists.  If you are not inventorying your systems, how do you know if they have adequate controls to protect the data and network.   If you had a breach of data, would you know what type of data was involved, or would you even know if you had a breach?  To further extend this, how can you perform a risk assessment on the system to understand and relay ...
Read more

Vulnerability Management… It’s easy - Planning

I am sure you have had either consultants, vendors, or heard at a conference that vulnerability management is foundational security control.  While I agree that it is an essential control, I also understand that it is challenging to implement.  Vulnerability management is not just to pick a tool, scan, and fix issues.  Many components make it a complicated journey.  This series will attempt to help break it down and give you ideas on how this complex service and be delivered effectively.    Planning   Objective When you start, I recommend creating a targeted objective and set of measures against your objective.   Ensure that you keep in mind your organization’s culture, politics, and risk appetite as you are developing your objective.   I have seen some target just “critical” systems for regulatory compliance, whereas others have targeted their entire enterprise.   No matter your scope, keep in mind your team’s current resource...
Read more

Generative AI Governance: Using the NIST Framework to Build Trust, Reduce Risk, and Lead Secure AI Adoption

Generative AI has moved faster than nearly any technology security leaders have dealt with. Tools that can generate text, code, images, and data insights are now embedded into productivity platforms, security tooling, development workflows, and business operations—often before security teams are formally involved. For CISOs, this creates a familiar but amplified challenge: innovation is happening faster than governance, and unmanaged generative AI introduces material risk across confidentiality, integrity, availability, compliance, and trust. For aspiring information security professionals, AI governance represents a growing and valuable discipline where strategic thinking matters just as much as technical depth. The good news? We don’t need to invent governance from scratch. NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) provides a practical, flexible structure that security leaders can use today to govern generative AI responsibly and defensibly. Why Generative AI Governance Matt...
Read more