Shared language in euros
Security, finance and board speak the same unit. Risk and investment sit in the same number. The board cadence needs no explanation, only substantiation.
ASSESSMENT·CYBER RISK IN EUROS. THE LANGUAGE YOUR BOARD UNDERSTANDS.
Cyber risk in euros. The language your board understands.
svcFairRiskQuantificering.heroSub
A shared language for cyber risk decisions is missing. We build the capability to manage risk in financial terms your board understands.
Duration7 to 11 weeks initial
EffortSenior risk architect, FAIR Certified
For whomCISO, CFO, board
THE CONTEXT
Why this assessment is often necessary
Three patterns that repeat every quarter. On the left what emerges in the organisation, on the right what it does to decision-making.
What we see
The board asks a financial question.
The CISO presents heat maps and a maturity score of 3.2. A board member leans forward and asks what it costs if this goes wrong. An answer in euros is missing.
What that does
The conversation drifts into generalities.
No decision, no budget, no mandate. The next quarterly report is already on the agenda with the same question.
What we see
Two million euros for endpoint detection.
An investment request lands on the CFO's desk. No framework to test whether the amount is proportionate to the risk it addresses.
What that does
The CFO approves on gut feel.
Without substantiation, the most convincing presenter wins. The portfolio of security investments becomes a collection of disconnected decisions.
What we see
DORA, NIS2 and the Dutch Cybersecurity Act demand substantiation.
Supervisors expect financial substantiation of risk choices. Maturity scores are no longer enough.
What that does
The CISO has the knowledge, not the language.
The problem is methodological, not a knowledge gap. Running a full quantification process alongside daily operations is not realistic.
Outcome
What it delivers
Not a maturity model. A financially substantiated trade-off the board can sign off on, based on FAIR-MAM from The Open Group.
Substantiated investment analysis
Current-to-future per investment option. What reduces most, at what cost, with what uncertainty. The sharpest trade-off wins, not the most expensive pitch.
Demonstrable due diligence
Methodological substantiation that holds up for DORA, NIS2 and the Dutch Cybersecurity Act. Assumptions explicit, confidence levels stated, repeatable by your team.
Approach
How the capability is built
First measurement in seven to eleven weeks. After that, a continuous rhythm that keeps the capability sharp.
DocumentBoard package with FAIR-MAM scenario analysis and investment trade-off
Timeline7 to 11 weeks initially
Your time10 to 14 hours schedule, phased
Our teamOne senior risk architect, FAIR Certified
#StepWhat it isWhenDuration
01
Scope and business context
Identify business-critical processes, crown jewels and threat landscape. Build the scenario list from your context, not from generic templates.
Week 1 to 32 to 3 wks02
Quantification and calibration
FAIR-MAM analysis per scenario. Transparent assumptions with explicit confidence levels. Stakeholder review built in, no quantification behind closed doors.
Week 3 to 94 to 6 wks03
Board reporting and investment analysis
Translation to board language. Current-to-future per investment option. First reporting in a form the board actually uses, not a one-off presentation.
Week 9 to 111 to 2 wks04
Continuous recalibration
Methodology transferred. Three choices to keep the capability sharp: in-house with recalibration by your own team, managed quarterly recalibration via Absolute Security, or vCISO retainer for strategic guidance at board level.
OngoingOngoingParticipants
Who's involved
A workable split between your team and ours. No mid-project handover, no team you never meet.
On your side
What you bring
Business stakeholders, scenario input, board cadence and internal data. A director-level sponsor who covers the scope and uses the outcome. Two to three sessions of two hours, plus review moments.
On our side
What we carry
One senior risk architect, FAIR Certified, Open FAIR. Methodology, modelling, board translation and handover. No junior intermediary; you always speak with the same senior who does the work.
Scope limits
What this is not
Three things we explicitly do not do, because they lead to the wrong result.
Not a one-off report
A report ages. The capability to quantify cyber risk is a continuous mechanism that grows with threats, regulation and your organisation.
Not a platform or dashboard
You do not get a tool to log into; you get a methodology plus the skill to apply it. FAIR is an open standard from The Open Group, not a proprietary stack.
Not a vendor-driven analysis
The methodology says nothing about which products you need. Vendor choices follow from the analysis, not the other way around. Works strongest in combination with TPRM and CTEM in the same portfolio.