To keep up with a quickly changing threat environment, organizations are reassessing how they assess risk. They no longer view them only as a once-a-year exercise. They recognize their value as important tools for making informed decisions.
While many still confuse gap analysis with risk assessment, the difference is important. A gap analysis measures how well a company follows a specific set of controls, often linked to frameworks like ISO or NIST. A risk assessment, on the other hand, can be customized to look at any threat. This allows security leaders to focus their assessments where they are most needed.
I had just started a new role as a CISO and quickly realized that access control was a big issue. Every user in every system seemed to have admin privileges. I decided to assess every critical system for the threat of unauthorized access and tailored the assessment by focusing on that threat. We asked questions like:
- “What types of data does your system store?” (for impact calculation)
- “How many users have administrative permissions?”
- “Can granular user access be assigned based on need?” (RBAC)
- “What authentication methods are used?”
- “Are there audit logs?”
Combine the access control assessment results with a well-written report that assigns the risk to the business owner, and I had an effective tool for bringing awareness and change to the organization around managing access.
Beyond frameworks: Why static models fall short
Cybersecurity frameworks provide necessary structure, but they are largely static and cannot substitute for real-time risk processes. Most compliance frameworks require an annual risk assessment because they often lag behind in covering rapidly evolving threats. Relying only on framework-based assessments risks overlooking important issues. This includes matters that go beyond static controls, such as AI adoption, cloud service updates and third-party dependencies.
These gaps highlight the importance of combining a solid compliance stance while regularly tailoring assessments to current realities. Frameworks are updated on multi-year cycles, while threats evolve daily. Organizations must focus on what really matters: key business assets, changing technologies and real-world operations.
Focused risk assessments: Less is more
Traditional framework reviews can involve hundreds of controls and questions, which may be appropriate for large compliance engagements but are often impractical for smaller teams or fast-moving environments. A focused risk assessment, by contrast, can be built around 20–40 targeted questions. These assessments concentrate on high-probability, high-impact threats and the few controls that materially reduce risk.
In one real-world example, I designed a 26-question assessment that helped a mid-sized organization zero in on its most pressing vulnerabilities. The result was a clear, actionable roadmap that delivered immediate value without the overhead of a full framework review.
This method is particularly beneficial when resources are scarce for organizations. By narrowing the scope, teams are able to rapidly identify and solve the highest priority risks, providing a good foundation for further action like targeted remediation or complete framework alignment.
Frequency over formality
One of the most overlooked aspects of risk assessments is cadence. While gap analyses are sometimes done yearly or to prepare for large-scale audits, risk assessments need to be continuous or performed on a regular schedule. Threats do not respect calendar cycles. Major changes, including new technologies, mergers, regulatory changes or implementing AI, need to trigger reassessments.
Integrating risk assessments into regular governance practices, such as quarterly reviews of high-risk assets, evaluations after significant changes and annual assessments, helps organizations stay ahead of evolving threats. Moving to a dynamic approach to risk management from a static one is essential for developing long-term strength.
Designing an effective risk assessment
A modern risk assessment begins with business context. What are the critical assets, processes and outcomes that must be protected? From there, organizations can identify the most likely threat paths and the controls that reduce those risks.
Rather than cataloging every control in a framework, the focus should be on threat-and-control alignment. For example, if ransomware is a major concern, the assessment should focus on controls related to backups, restores, authentication and user awareness. Many organizations regularly back up their data, but they often neglect to test their restoration process. This leaves them at risk when it really counts. In this context, relying solely on backups provides a false sense of security; the real value lies in the ability to restore. A good assessment can uncover these issues and put focus on their priority.
Emerging vectors such as AI, cloud misconfigurations and software vulnerabilities should be explicitly included. These areas often fall outside traditional frameworks but represent significant risk. To assess AI risk for example, ask these questions:
- “How do you use AI?”
- “What data does your AI have access to?”
- “Do you make business decisions using AI?”
- “Is AI used for automation?”
With these simple questions, you can uncover hidden exposures, which are especially critical when sensitive data is involved or decision-making is automated.
A simple, repeatable scoring model that rates likelihood and impact helps turn findings into remediation priorities. Consistency across assessments enables trend analysis and supports executive decision-making.
Executive-grade outputs
Risk assessments should culminate in outputs that business leaders can act on. This includes a concise risk heat map, a prioritized remediation roadmap and clear asks, such as budget, ownership and timelines. These deliverables convert technical findings into strategic decisions. They also help build trust with stakeholders, especially in organizations that may be new to formal risk management.
Target for smaller teams
Targeted risk assessments can be viewed as a low-cost, fundamental option. They are best suited to companies that have limited budget or are not prepared for a full review of the framework. With reduced scope, shorter turnaround and transparent business value, such assessments enable rapid establishment of trust, delivering prioritized outcomes. They help to create a roadmap for deeper engagement and make cybersecurity accessible to smaller teams.
By starting small, organizations can build credibility and expand into broader programs, such as continuous monitoring, remediation or full framework alignment.
A pragmatic mindset
Risk assessments are not just checkboxes. They are tools for making decisions. The best programs are aligned with the business, focused, consistent and made to change over time. For many organizations, a short, focused assessment gives executives the evidence they need to justify budgets and demonstrate due diligence. It delivers immediate value and creates a pathway to sustained risk management.
This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?