Cyber Decision LedgerDecision area

Board risk

7 public Decision Records in the whole ledger carry this label. Back to the full Ledger →

Decision Records

Board recovery-crisis escalationCRT-2026-04172026.10.22Morning roundtable4 references

Tier-1 recovery proof for board escalation

Boards should use documented, isolated, and integrity-validated recovery tests to determine whether every Tier-1 service can be restored within its approved recovery-time objective. Any failure or absence of current testing should trigger operational escalation. External incident totals are not a substitute for the organization's own recovery evidence, and this rule does not establish legal materiality or any organization's present recovery status.

ActiveLast revised 2026-10-22
AreaBoard risk
SeverityHigh
Confidence0/8 backed · 2 gaps
High-value and changed-payment authorization controlsCRT-2026-04112026.10.20Afternoon roundtable3 references

Transaction-Bound Approval for High-Risk Payments

For high-value or changed payments, callbacks and ordinary dual approval are not sufficient authorization controls when communication channels can be impersonated. Payments should be released through the approved treasury or payment platform using phishing-resistant credentials, transaction-bound approval, separate reporting lines, and independent beneficiary verification. Voice and messaging should serve only as corroboration.

ActiveLast revised 2026-10-20
AreaBoard risk
SeverityHigh
ConfidenceHigh confidence · 1/8 backed · 2 gaps
KelpDAO crisis escalationCRT-2026-03162026.09.26Morning roundtable4 references

Board escalation for sustained KelpDAO redemption failure

Organizations may adopt four consecutive hours of failed withdrawals or redemptions as an internal board-escalation threshold, subject to approval against their liquidity obligations and risk tolerance. Sustained operational harm is a safer trigger than a disputed loss estimate.

ActiveLast revised 2026-09-26
AreaBoard risk
SeverityHigh
Confidence0/8 backed · 2 gaps
AI agent delegated authority and connector controlsCRT-2026-02222026.08.10Afternoon roundtable7 references

Govern AI agents as privileged connector infrastructure

Organizations should treat enterprise AI agents and assistants as privileged connector infrastructure: review and disable unnecessary connectors, limit high-risk actions, require authorization and approval for sensitive grants, refresh tokens where warranted, and retain audit trails that connect users, agents, and downstream tools.

ActiveLast revised 2026-08-10
TechAI / ML systemsAreaBoard riskRisk acceptance
SeverityHigh
Confidence0/8 backed · 2 gaps
Enterprise AI agent and connector governanceCRT-2026-01382026.07.27Afternoon roundtable7 references

Govern AI agents and SaaS connectors as privileged authority paths

Organizations should govern AI agents and SaaS connectors as privileged authority paths. They should disable or tightly scope agent creation, require admin approval and audit for new agents and connectors, reduce OAuth scopes, use least-privilege service identities, add egress controls, treat retrieved content as untrusted input, strip hidden comments, and require human approval before write, merge, credential, or outbound actions.

Treat enterprise AI agents and SaaS connectors as systems that can exercise authority, not as ordinary chat features. Limit who can create and connect them, minimize scopes, audit changes, constrain egress, treat retrieved content as untrusted, remove hidden instructions where feasible, and require human approval before sensitive actions. Avoid presenting named incident anecdotes as verified compromises unless primary sources are attached.

ActiveLast revised 2026-07-27
TechAI / ML systemsAreaBoard riskRisk acceptance
SeverityHigh
Confidence0/9 backed · 2 gaps
72-hour emergency security authorityCRT-2026-00432026.07.06Afternoon roundtable4 references

Authorize temporary emergency controls for identity, mobile, edge, and AI workflow exposure

Approve concrete 72-hour authority and downtime tolerance today: force identity controls for finance and admin users, allow security to quarantine non-compliant mobile devices without business-unit delay, and authorize emergency change windows for edge and AI workflow systems, with rollback and business-risk ownership.

Boards or executive teams facing the cited identity, mobile, edge, and AI workflow exposure set should consider a time-boxed emergency-change posture: authorize stronger controls for privileged and finance identities, permit quarantine of non-compliant managed mobile devices, and approve emergency windows for exposed edge or AI workflow systems instead of relying only on monitoring uplift.

ActiveLast revised 2026-07-06
TechAI / ML systemsAreaBoard riskRisk acceptance
SeverityHigh
Confidence0/9 backed · 2 gaps
Confidential-computing architecture riskCRT-2026-00342026.07.05Morning roundtable4 references

Attested TLS confidential-computing architecture review

Review Attested TLS/confidential-computing endpoint identity binding, relay assumptions, and mTLS/service identity controls this week; treat it as medium-priority architecture risk rather than immediate incident response in this packet.

Place the reported Attested TLS/confidential-computing endpoint-trust issue into this week’s architecture review. Verify endpoint identity binding, relay assumptions, and mTLS/service identity controls; do not treat it as an incident queue item absent affected deployment evidence.

ActiveLast revised 2026-07-05
AreaBoard riskRisk acceptance
SeveritySeverity was not recorded when this record was first published.
Confidence0/9 backed · 2 gaps

Unified Search

Search the public record.