🛡️ Preventing Conflicts Through Compensating Controls
🎯 Single-Person Organization Security Excellence via Temporal, Tool-Based, and External Separation
📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 2.1 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-01-25 (UTC)
🔄 Review Cycle: Annual | ⏰ Next Review: 2027-01-25
In traditional multi-person organizations, segregation of duties prevents fraud and error by ensuring no single individual controls all aspects of a critical process. Hack23 AB, as a single-person company, demonstrates that the security objectives of segregation of duties can be achieved through innovative compensating controls: temporal separation, tool-based automation, immutable audit trails, and external validation.
This policy embodies our principle that security through transparency extends to acknowledging operational constraints while implementing rigorous controls that often exceed traditional multi-person separation. By documenting incompatible role combinations and their mitigations, we provide a template for other small organizations and demonstrate to clients our deep understanding of security principles.
— James Pether Sörling, CEO/Founder
This policy implements ISO 27001:2022 Control A.5.3 (Segregation of Duties) by defining incompatible role combinations and establishing compensating controls that reduce opportunities for unauthorized or unintentional modification or misuse of organizational assets.
This policy applies to:
- All business processes where conflicting duties could introduce risk
- All information systems documented in the Asset Register
- Financial, technical, governance, and operational activities
- CEO/Founder performing multiple roles with temporal and tool-based separation
ISO 27001:2022 Control A.5.3 requires segregation of duties to reduce opportunities for unauthorized or unintentional modification or misuse of the organization's assets. In a single-person organization like Hack23 AB, traditional role-based segregation is not possible. Instead, we implement logical separation, temporal separation, tool-based controls, and compensating controls to achieve the security objectives of this control.
This matrix documents:
- Incompatible role combinations that present security risks
- Compensating controls for single-person operations
- Automated and procedural safeguards
- External validation requirements
The following table identifies critical role combinations that must be separated through compensating controls:
| Role A | Role B | Conflict Type | Risk if Combined | Mitigation / Compensating Control |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| System Administrator | Security Auditor | 🔍 Audit | Admin could hide unauthorized changes from security reviews | • CloudTrail immutable logs with external backup • AWS Config continuous monitoring • GuardDuty automated threat detection • Quarterly external security reviews |
| Developer | Production Deployer | ⚙️ Operational | Untested/malicious code could bypass quality gates | • GitHub PR approval workflow required • CI/CD automated testing gates (unit, E2E, security) • Risk-based temporal separation: 24-hour minimum for deployments • Protected branch policies prevent direct pushes |
| Code Author | Code Reviewer (same change) | ⚙️ Operational | Code defects and vulnerabilities could be missed | • GitHub enforces different author/reviewer • Required approvals from external contributors or automated tools • SonarCloud automated code review • Dependabot security analysis |
| Financial Approver | Payment Processor (same transaction) | 💰 Financial | Fraud risk: unauthorized payments to self or vendors | • Risk-based temporal separation: High-risk (>50K SEK) = 48h; Medium-risk (<50K SEK) = 24h • Bokio accounting audit trail • Bank (SEB) provides transaction review • Monthly bank reconciliation review |
| Backup Administrator | Backup Restore Validator | 💾 Operational | Invalid backups could go undetected; ransomware resilience compromised | • AWS Backup automated validation • Quarterly restore testing to isolated environment • S3 Object Lock prevents backup tampering • External documentation of restore procedures |
| Access Provisioner | Access Reviewer | 🔑 Access Control | Excessive privileges could be granted without oversight | • Quarterly access review documented in access control logs • AWS IAM Access Analyzer automated analysis • Principle of least privilege with time-limited escalation • CloudTrail audit of all IAM changes |
| Risk Assessor | Risk Owner (same risk) | ⚖️ Governance | Risk ratings could be manipulated; residual risk hidden | • Risk Register version control in GitHub • External consultant reviews for risk score ≥8/10 • Insurance provider validates cyber liability risk assessment • Risk decisions documented with rationale |
| Policy Author | Policy Approver | 📋 Governance | Inadequate policies could be self-approved | • Risk-based temporal separation: Major changes (7 days) vs. Minor updates (24 hours) • External legal counsel reviews critical policies (privacy, compliance) • Public GitHub transparency enables external feedback • Version control tracks all changes with timestamps |
| Incident Responder | Incident Investigator (self-incidents) | 🚨 Incident Management | Conflict of interest in investigating own actions | • Automated logging cannot be disabled by responder • External incident response consultant for CEO-involved incidents • Insurance provider reviews significant incidents • Regulatory reporting obligations ensure external oversight |
| Vulnerability Scanner | Remediation Validator | 🔍 Vulnerability Management | False validation of incomplete fixes | • Automated re-scanning by multiple tools (Dependabot, SonarCloud, OWASP ZAP) • OpenSSF Scorecard provides independent validation • Risk-based temporal separation: High-risk vulnerabilities = 48h validation period • Public security scorecards enable external validation |
| Cryptographic Key Creator | Key Usage Logger Reviewer | 🔒 Cryptography | Key misuse could be hidden from audit trails | • AWS KMS automated key usage logging to CloudTrail • Key rotation enforced automatically (90-day max) • AWS Config monitors key policy changes • External backup of CloudTrail logs to immutable S3 bucket |
| Data Classifier | Data Access Grantor (same dataset) | 🏷️ Data Protection | Data could be under-classified to justify inappropriate access | • Data Classification Policy defines objective criteria • Automated classification tools where possible • Quarterly review of data classifications • External legal counsel validates sensitive data handling |
| Change Requester | Change Approver (same change) | 📝 Change Management | Risky changes could be self-approved without adequate review | • GitHub PR workflow enforces separation • Risk-based temporal separation: High (48h), Medium (24h), Low (0h with logging) • Automated approval for low-risk changes only • CI/CD gates prevent deployment of unapproved changes |
| Supplier Assessor | Supplier Contract Approver (same supplier) | 🤝 Third-Party Management | Inadequate supplier security could be overlooked | • Supplier risk assessment documented before contract • Legal counsel reviews contracts >100K SEK/year • Risk-based temporal separation: Critical suppliers = 7 days review • External stakeholder feedback (e.g., AWS Trust & Safety) |
| Monitoring Administrator | Alert Reviewer | 📊 Security Monitoring | Security alerts could be dismissed or hidden | • GuardDuty and Security Hub cannot be disabled without CloudTrail record • SNS notifications provide external alert record • Quarterly external review of security findings • Public OpenSSF Scorecard shows unresolved issues |
Hack23 AB differentiates between major and minor policy updates to balance governance rigor with operational efficiency.
Major changes affect organizational risk profile and warrant extended reflection:
Criteria (any of the following):
- New Policies or Procedures: Creating entirely new governance documents
- Scope Expansion: Adding new systems, controls, or organizational requirements
- Control Modifications: Changes affecting security posture or compliance obligations
- Framework Alignment Changes: Modifications to ISO 27001, NIST CSF, or CIS Controls mappings
- Regulatory Impact: Changes affecting GDPR, NIS2, or other regulatory compliance
Approval Process:
- Draft: CEO creates initial policy draft with rationale
- 7-Day Reflection: Minimum waiting period to consider implications and alternatives
- External Review (if applicable): Legal counsel or domain expert feedback for critical policies
- Final Approval: CEO approves after reflection period with documented decision rationale
- Version Control: GitHub commit with clear change description and version increment
Example Major Changes:
- Creating new Incident Response Plan procedures
- Adding mandatory security controls to Secure Development Policy
- Expanding scope of Data Classification Policy to cover new data types
- Modifying access control requirements in Access Control Policy
Minor updates improve documentation quality without affecting security or business operations:
Criteria (all of the following):
- No Security Impact: Changes do not affect security controls or risk posture
- No Scope Change: Existing policy scope and requirements unchanged
- Clarification Only: Improves readability, corrects errors, or updates formatting
- Easily Reversible: Changes can be reverted with minimal impact
Approval Process:
- Draft: CEO creates update with clear change description
- 24-Hour Review: Brief reflection period to identify unintended consequences
- Final Approval: CEO approves after review period
- Version Control: GitHub commit with change description (minor version increment)
Example Minor Updates:
- Correcting typos, grammar, or formatting inconsistencies
- Updating cross-references to other ISMS documents
- Clarifying existing requirements without changing intent
- Adjusting document metadata (review dates, version numbers)
- Fixing broken links or updating URLs
- Improving table formatting or diagram readability
flowchart TD
START[📝 Policy Update Needed] --> Q1{Does change affect<br/>security controls<br/>or compliance?}
Q1 -->|Yes| MAJOR[🔴 Major Change<br/>7-Day Reflection]
Q1 -->|No| Q2{Does change expand<br/>policy scope or<br/>add requirements?}
Q2 -->|Yes| MAJOR
Q2 -->|No| Q3{Is change purely<br/>clarification,<br/>formatting, or typos?}
Q3 -->|Yes| MINOR[🟢 Minor Update<br/>24-Hour Review]
Q3 -->|No| MAJOR
MAJOR --> MAJOR_PROCESS[📋 Major Process:<br/>• Draft with rationale<br/>• 7-day waiting period<br/>• External review if critical<br/>• CEO approval<br/>• Version increment]
MINOR --> MINOR_PROCESS[✅ Minor Process:<br/>• Draft with description<br/>• 24-hour review<br/>• CEO approval<br/>• Minor version increment]
MAJOR_PROCESS --> COMPLETE[✅ Update Complete]
MINOR_PROCESS --> COMPLETE
classDef major fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
classDef minor fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
classDef decision fill:#FF9800,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
classDef process fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
classDef complete fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
class START,Q1,Q2,Q3 decision
class MAJOR major
class MINOR minor
class MAJOR_PROCESS,MINOR_PROCESS process
class COMPLETE complete
Rationale: Major changes affect organizational risk profile and benefit from reflection; minor updates improve documentation quality without security impact. This differentiation enables rapid correction of documentation issues while maintaining governance for substantive changes.
Given Hack23 AB's single-person structure, the following compensating controls ensure segregation of duties objectives are met:
Hack23 AB implements temporal separation based on change risk level rather than fixed waiting periods, enabling business agility while maintaining security rigor for high-risk activities.
| Risk Level | Minimum Separation | Examples | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🔴 High Risk | 48 hours | • Security configuration changes • Financial approvals >50K SEK • Critical infrastructure modifications • Production database schema changes • Access control policy modifications |
Fraud/error potential justifies delay; irreversible consequences require reflection period |
| 🟡 Medium Risk | 24 hours | • Code deployments to production • Policy updates (non-security) • Access grants to sensitive systems • Supplier contracts <100K SEK/year • Medium-impact infrastructure changes |
Balance risk mitigation with business velocity; reversible if issues detected |
| 🟢 Low Risk | Same-day (0 hours) | • Bug fixes and patches • Documentation updates • Typo corrections and formatting • Routine operational tasks • Financial transactions <5K SEK |
Minimal risk; enhanced logging sufficient; delays harm business more than protect |
High-Risk Change Criteria (any of the following):
- Affects authentication, authorization, or encryption systems
- Modifies security monitoring or audit logging
- Changes critical business processes (financial, legal, regulatory)
- Impacts data classified as High/Very High confidentiality
- Financial value >50K SEK or contractual commitment >100K SEK/year
- Affects business-critical systems with RTO ≤4 hours
Medium-Risk Change Criteria (any of the following):
- Modifies production application code or infrastructure
- Updates policies affecting multiple stakeholders
- Grants access to systems containing sensitive data
- Changes with moderate financial impact (5K-50K SEK)
- Affects systems with RTO 4-24 hours
Low-Risk Change Criteria (all of the following):
- Does not affect security controls or sensitive data
- Easily reversible with minimal impact
- Financial value <5K SEK
- Affects non-critical systems or documentation only
- Well-tested with automated validation passing
- GitHub: Enforces different author/reviewer for pull requests via branch protection
- CI/CD Pipelines: Automated gates prevent deployment without passing tests (unit 80%+, E2E, SAST, SCA)
- AWS Services:
- CloudTrail provides immutable audit logs
- AWS Config monitors configuration changes
- GuardDuty detects anomalous activity
- IAM Access Analyzer identifies excessive permissions
- AWS Backup automates validation
All critical business activities maintain immutable audit trails through automated systems that prevent tampering or deletion:
| Audit Category | Implementation | Retention | Immutability Mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code & Policies | GitHub version control with branch protection | Permanent | No force-push allowed; full commit history preserved |
| Infrastructure Changes | AWS CloudTrail + S3 Object Lock | 90 days minimum | Object Lock prevents deletion; encrypted backup to separate account |
| Financial Transactions | Bokio accounting + SEB bank statements | 7 years (regulatory) | Independent third-party records; cannot be modified by CEO |
| CI/CD Execution | GitHub Actions logs + workflow history | 90 days | Automated logging; captured before deployment authorization |
Previous Separate Controls (Now Consolidated):
CloudTrail immutable logs→ Included in Infrastructure Changes aboveS3 Object Lock backup→ Included in Infrastructure Changes aboveGitHub commit history→ Included in Code & Policies aboveBokio financial records→ Included in Financial Transactions above
Result: 4 audit trail controls organized into comprehensive control category for clarity (no security reduction, improved documentation structure)
External validation provides independent oversight for high-risk decisions while maintaining pragmatic thresholds for routine business activities.
- GDPR Compliance Changes: Legal counsel review for privacy policy modifications, data processing agreements
- Cyber Liability Risk Assessments: Insurance provider validation for significant risk changes
- Critical Financial Transactions: Bank reconciliation review for transactions >50K SEK
- Major Supplier Contracts: Legal counsel review for contracts >100K SEK/year or critical services
- High-Severity Security Incidents: External incident response consultant for CEO-involved incidents
- Strategic Partner Feedback: Business decisions and partnership opportunities
- Open Source Community Review: Public GitHub repositories enable peer review of security practices
- Risk Assessment Consultation: Informal peer consultation on risk ratings for medium-severity risks
- Quarterly Security Audits: Planned external audits (aspirational, not mandatory for all quarters)
External validation is required when a decision meets both of the following criteria:
- Risk Score ≥8/10 (using CVSS-style likelihood × impact scale)
- High/Critical Impact on confidentiality, integrity, or availability (per CLASSIFICATION.md)
The following tools provide continuous external validation without manual overhead:
- OpenSSF Scorecard: Independent security posture assessment (target: ≥9.0/10)
- SonarCloud: Automated code quality and security analysis
- Dependabot: Vulnerability scanning and dependency analysis
- FOSSA: License compliance and supply chain security
- AWS Security Hub: Aggregated security findings from multiple AWS services
- Founder Knowledge Transfer: Comprehensive business continuity documentation per Founder_Knowledge_Transfer_Template.md
- Quarterly Knowledge Review: Systematic update of critical business knowledge for strategic partner emergency handoff
- Break-Glass Procedures: Documented emergency access procedures for business continuity scenarios
- Partner Knowledge Validation: Semi-annual testing of strategic partner ability to execute emergency procedures (see Business_Continuity_Plan.md)
- Risk Mitigation: Addresses R-FOUNDER-001 (Single-Person Dependency) in Risk_Register.md
- AWS GuardDuty: Continuous threat detection across AWS accounts
- AWS Security Hub: Aggregates findings from multiple security tools
- CloudWatch Alarms: Alerts on unusual activity patterns (failed logins, IAM changes, large data transfers)
- GitHub Advanced Security: Secret scanning, dependency vulnerability alerts
The following diagram illustrates the simplified risk-based segregation of duties workflow for a single-person organization:
flowchart TD
A[🎯 Change Request<br/>CEO submits request] --> B{🏷️ Risk Level<br/>Classification}
B -->|🔴 High Risk| C[⏱️ 48-Hour<br/>Reflection Period]
B -->|🟡 Medium Risk| D[⏱️ 24-Hour<br/>Review Period]
B -->|🟢 Low Risk| E[✅ Same-Day<br/>with Enhanced Logging]
C --> F[📋 Document<br/>Rationale & Controls]
F --> G[🔍 External Review<br/>if Risk ≥8/10]
G --> H[🛠️ Implementation<br/>with Audit Trail]
D --> I[🤖 Automated<br/>Validation Gates]
I -->|✅ Pass| J[👤 CEO Approval<br/>Next Business Day]
I -->|❌ Fail| A
E --> K[📊 Enhanced Logging<br/>Immutable Record]
K --> L[🚀 Immediate<br/>Implementation]
J --> M[🚀 Production<br/>Deployment]
H --> M
L --> M
M --> N[🔎 Post-Implementation<br/>Validation]
N -->|✅ Success| O[📈 Continuous<br/>Monitoring]
N -->|❌ Issues| P[🔄 Rollback<br/>& Review]
P --> A
O --> Q[📅 Quarterly<br/>Control Validation]
style A fill:#2196F3,stroke:#1565C0,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
style B fill:#FF9800,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
style C fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,stroke-width:3px,color:#fff
style D fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
style E fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
style F fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
style G fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
style H fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
style I fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
style J fill:#2196F3,stroke:#1565C0,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
style K fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
style L fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
style M fill:#2E7D32,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:3px,color:#fff
style N fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
style O fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
style P fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
style Q fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
Key Workflow Improvements:
- Risk-Based Temporal Separation: High (48h) → Medium (24h) → Low (0h) based on change risk classification
- Automated Validation: Medium-risk changes leverage automated gates before CEO approval
- Enhanced Logging for Low-Risk: Same-day implementation allowed with comprehensive audit trail
- External Review Threshold: Only required for high-risk changes with risk score ≥8/10
- Simplified Path: Low-risk changes follow streamlined process without artificial delays
To ensure ongoing compliance with segregation of duties principles:
- CloudTrail Analysis: Daily review of high-privilege actions (IAM changes, security configuration)
- GuardDuty Findings: Real-time alerts for suspicious activity
- GitHub Actions: Automated checks on every commit and PR
- OpenSSF Scorecard: Weekly updates on security posture
- Access Control Review: Validate principle of least privilege, review all IAM policies
- Risk Register Review: Ensure risk assessments have documented rationale and external input for high/critical risks
- Policy Review: Verify temporal separation was observed for policy updates
- Change Log Review: Audit change approval and implementation patterns
- External Security Audit: Independent assessment of ISMS effectiveness including SoD controls
- ISO 27001 Readiness: Pre-certification audit validates compensating controls
- Insurance Review: Cyber liability provider validates risk management practices
- Legal Compliance Review: Legal counsel reviews privacy and regulatory compliance
The following evidence demonstrates SoD compliance:
- GitHub: PR approval history, commit timestamps, CI/CD execution logs
- AWS CloudTrail: IAM changes, security configuration modifications, API activity
- Bokio: Financial transaction approval dates vs. execution dates
- Risk Register: Version control history showing risk assessment and approval separation
- OpenSSF Scorecard: Public security posture validation
In emergency situations where normal segregation controls might delay critical response, Hack23 AB provides pragmatic break-glass procedures that balance urgency with accountability.
Authorized emergency scenarios:
- 🚨 Active Security Incidents: Active threats requiring immediate response to prevent or contain damage
- ⏰ Critical System Failures: RTO breach imminent; customer-impacting outages requiring emergency fix
- 🤝 Customer Escalations: Customer demands immediate fix for critical issue affecting their operations or contract commitments
- 💼 Time-Sensitive Business Opportunities: Proposal deadlines, partnership negotiations, competitive responses requiring rapid deployment
- ⚖️ Regulatory Deadlines: Legal/regulatory filing deadlines that cannot be met with normal procedures
- 👤 Founder Unavailability Emergency: Strategic partner emergency activation per Partnership Framework
Enhanced Logging Requirements:
- Detailed Justification: Document specific business impact that justified bypassing normal controls
- Timestamp Recording: Capture exact time of decision and action execution
- Risk Assessment: Brief assessment of decision risk vs. delay risk
- Alternative Analysis: Document why normal procedures were insufficient
Post-Action Review Process:
- Review Timeline: Within 7 days of break-glass activation (relaxed from 72 hours for operational pragmatism)
- External Review: Engage external party (insurance provider, legal counsel, security consultant) if available and appropriate
- Lessons Learned: Document what worked, what could improve, and process updates needed
- Control Validation: Verify break-glass did not compromise other security controls
Break-glass procedures exist to prevent process from harming business competitiveness or customer relationships. CEO judgment is trusted with accountability through comprehensive logging and post-action review.
For founder unavailability emergencies (illness, incapacitation, burnout), break-glass procedures are integrated with strategic partnership activation:
- Emergency Runbook: Partnership Emergency Activation Runbook provides 4-hour RTO procedures
- Access Delegation: Strategic partners receive emergency access via 1Password Emergency Kit
- System Access: Partner break-glass access includes GitHub (Owner), AWS (Administrator), Email (Full), Bokio (Read)
- Logging Requirement: All partnership activations logged in
emergency-activation-[DATE].mdfile - Post-Activation Review: Within 7 days of founder return, review activation with partner and emergency contact
Cross-References:
- 🤝 Strategic Partnership Framework - Emergency Overflow Protocol
- 🔄 Business Continuity Plan - Founder Unavailability Scenario
- 📉 Risk Register - R-FOUNDER-001 (Single-Person Dependency)
Segregation of duties controls are continuously improved through:
- Automation Expansion: Identify manual steps that can be automated to reduce human error
- Tool Enhancement: Evaluate new AWS services and GitHub features that provide additional separation
- External Feedback: Incorporate findings from audits, peer reviews, and regulatory guidance
- Industry Best Practices: Monitor NIST, ISO, CIS guidance on compensating controls for small organizations
All compensating controls undergo systematic validation to ensure operational effectiveness and prevent control degradation over time. This validation process transforms documented controls from paper procedures into verified, functioning security measures.
- Quarterly Comprehensive: All controls validated against detailed checklist (focus on manual controls)
- Monthly Spot-Check: Random sample of 3 controls validated for continuous monitoring (reduced from 5 for efficiency)
- Post-Incident: Relevant controls validated after any SoD-related security incident
- Annual External Audit: Independent assessment by external auditor validates all controls
- Checklist: SoD Compensating Controls Validation Checklist
- Owner: CEO (quarterly/monthly validations), External Auditor (annual validation)
- Target Pass Rate: ≥95% of controls passing validation
- Remediation: Failed controls must be remediated within 30 days (critical) or 60 days (non-critical)
- Documentation: Validation results documented in checklist with evidence attachments
- High-Risk Change Separation: 48-hour minimum for security/financial/infrastructure changes
- Medium-Risk Change Separation: 24-hour minimum for deployments/policies/access
- Major Policy Approval: 7-day minimum reflection period for substantive policy changes
Validation Method: Review Git commit timestamps and change logs for compliance with risk-based thresholds
These controls are self-validating through tool enforcement and require minimal manual validation effort:
- ✅ GitHub PR Approval: Different author/reviewer enforcement (automated via branch protection)
- ✅ CI/CD Testing Gates: Prevent deployment without passing tests (automated via GitHub Actions)
- ✅ AWS CloudTrail: Immutable logging with S3 Object Lock (automated via AWS Config)
- ✅ AWS Config: Configuration monitoring and compliance rules (automated)
- ✅ GuardDuty: Threat detection and alert generation (automated)
- ✅ IAM Access Analyzer: Excessive permissions detection (automated)
- ✅ Dependabot: Vulnerability scanning and SLA compliance (automated)
Validation Method: Verify tool configurations remain enabled; spot-check tool reports for active monitoring
- Code & Policy Version Control: GitHub full history with no force-push
- Infrastructure Audit Logging: CloudTrail + S3 Object Lock (90-day retention)
- Financial Record Independence: Bokio + bank statements (third-party immutability)
- CI/CD Execution Logging: GitHub Actions logs (automated capture)
Validation Method: Verify log retention periods; test sample queries for historical data availability
- Legal Counsel: GDPR compliance reviews for privacy/data protection changes
- Insurance Provider: Risk assessment validation for cyber liability coverage
- Automated Security Tools: OpenSSF Scorecard (target ≥9.0/10), SonarCloud, FOSSA
- Risk-Based Threshold: External validation for decisions with risk score ≥8/10
Validation Method: Review documentation of external reviews; verify automated tool reports are current
- GuardDuty Findings: Alert generation and investigation
- Security Hub: Aggregated security findings review
- CloudWatch Alarms: Unusual activity detection and alerting
- GitHub Advanced Security: Secret scanning and push protection
Validation Method: Verify alert configurations; review recent findings for appropriate response
Before Simplification:
- 23 individual controls requiring detailed quarterly validation
- Estimated effort: 4-6 hours per quarter
- All controls validated regardless of automation level
After Simplification:
- Total Controls: 22 (reduced from 23 through elimination of 1 redundant control)
- 11 Automated Controls (Tool-Based: 7 + Anomaly Detection: 4): Self-validating via configuration checks (~30 min)
- 11 Manual Controls (Temporal: 3 + Audit Trails: 4 + External Validation: 4): Focused validation effort (~2 hours)
- Total Quarterly Effort: ~2.5-3 hours (40% reduction)
- Monthly Spot-Check: 3 random controls (from 5) for continuous monitoring
- Validation Completion Rate: 100% quarterly comprehensive validations completed on schedule
- Control Pass Rate: ≥95% of controls passing validation (target: 21/22 controls, allowing 1 control to fail while maintaining 95% threshold)
- Remediation Timeliness: <30 days for critical controls, <60 days for non-critical
- Monthly Spot-Check Compliance: 100% monthly spot-checks completed
- Automated Control Uptime: 99%+ availability for tool-based controls
Validation results are reported in:
- Risk Register: R-FOUNDER-001 monitoring section tracks validation completion rate as Key Risk Indicator (KRI)
- Security Metrics: SoD control effectiveness KPIs track pass rate and validation completion
- Compliance Checklist: ISO 27001:2022 A.5.3 compliance status updated based on validation results
- Control Failure: CEO investigates and creates remediation plan within 5 business days
- Critical Control Failure (Tool-based, Audit trails): External consultant engaged if unresolved after 14 days
- Repeated Failures: Controls failing 2+ consecutive validations escalated to external auditor review
- Systemic Issues: Pass rate <85% triggers immediate external security audit
- 🎯 Information Security Strategy - AI-first operations, Pentagon framework, and strategic SoD direction
- 🔐 Information Security Policy - Overall ISMS framework with AI-First Operations Governance
- 🤖 AI Policy - AI-assisted compensating controls and automation
- 📉 Risk Register - Risk assessment and acceptance documentation
- ✅ Compliance Checklist - ISO 27001:2022 A.5.3, SOC 2 CC6.8 compliance
- 🔑 Access Control Policy - Least privilege and access reviews
- 📝 Change Management - Change approval workflows
- 🔍 Vulnerability Management - Vulnerability and remediation separation
- 💾 Backup Recovery Policy - Backup and restore validation separation
- 🚨 Incident Response Plan - Incident handling separation
- 📊 Security Metrics - SoD compliance monitoring metrics
- 🔍 SoD Compensating Controls Validation Checklist - Quarterly validation checklist
📋 Document Control:
✅ Approved by: James Pether Sörling, CEO
📤 Distribution: All Personnel, External Auditors
🏷️ Classification:
📅 Effective Date: 2026-01-25
⏰ Next Review: 2027-01-25
🎯 Framework Compliance: 
