Advisory service

Cyber Risk Management.

Translate technical exposure into business risk the board can act on. Quantitative risk modelling, KRI/KPI frameworks, integration with enterprise risk.

A board that hears "the SOC blocked 12 million events last month" learns nothing about whether the company is safer. We build risk models that answer the question the board actually asks: what is the financial exposure, what could change it, and what investments shift the curve.

What this includes

  • Quantitative risk model (FAIR-aligned where appropriate)
  • Top-20 risk register with loss-event scenarios
  • KRI/KPI framework integrated with existing enterprise risk reporting
  • Risk-appetite definition with management
  • Reporting cadence and templates for board and risk committee

How we run it

01

Inventory

Identify the loss-event scenarios that matter. Twenty to thirty, not two hundred.

02

Quantify

Estimate frequency and magnitude. Use ranges, document the assumptions.

03

Prioritise

Compare against risk appetite. The gaps drive the controls roadmap.

04

Operationalise

Embed in quarterly reporting. Risk numbers update; the model evolves.

What you get

  • Quantitative risk model and underlying assumptions
  • Risk register with top-20 scenarios
  • KRI/KPI framework document
  • Board-ready reporting templates
  • Workshop with management on risk-appetite definition

Why this matters

Boards under-invest in security because they do not understand the exposure they are leaving on the table. Quantification, even imperfect, beats heatmaps. The discipline of writing the numbers down is the discipline that changes investment decisions.

Questions we get

Is FAIR the only methodology?

FAIR is the most established for cyber. We use it as a baseline and adapt where industry-specific methods (e.g. Basel for financial services) take precedence. The methodology serves the decision, not the other way round.

How accurate can these numbers be?

More accurate than the alternative of not measuring. Quantitative ranges with documented assumptions are defensible. Heatmap colours are not.

How does this connect to insurance?

Insurers increasingly require quantitative risk modelling. The same outputs feed your cyber insurance application and your board reporting, which reduces duplication of effort.

Next step.

A 30-minute scoping call clarifies whether your situation fits this engagement.

Request a briefing