Skip to content

Security Operations Risk Register Template

Use this register to track security operations risks identified through Nexus SecOps assessments, threat intelligence, incident reviews, and ongoing monitoring.


Risk Register Metadata

Field Value
Organization
Risk Owner
Last Updated
Review Cadence Quarterly
Risk Framework Nexus SecOps v1.0 + NIST SP 800-30

Risk Scoring Matrix

Likelihood

Score Label Description
1 Rare Unlikely to occur in the next 12 months
2 Unlikely Could occur in the next 12 months
3 Possible Has occurred in this industry in the past 12 months
4 Likely Has occurred at this organization in the past 24 months
5 Almost Certain Expected to occur in the next 12 months

Impact

Score Label Description
1 Negligible No significant operational or business impact
2 Minor Limited operational disruption; no regulatory impact
3 Moderate Operational disruption; potential regulatory inquiry
4 Major Significant data loss/breach; regulatory notification likely
5 Catastrophic Extended outage; severe breach; regulatory penalty; reputational damage

Risk Score = Likelihood × Impact

Impact 1 Impact 2 Impact 3 Impact 4 Impact 5
Likelihood 5 5 10 15 20 25
Likelihood 4 4 8 12 16 20
Likelihood 3 3 6 9 12 15
Likelihood 2 2 4 6 8 10
Likelihood 1 1 2 3 4 5

Risk Rating Thresholds: - Critical (20–25): Immediate treatment required - High (12–16): Treatment required within 30 days - Medium (6–10): Treatment within 90 days - Low (1–5): Accept or treat in next planning cycle


Active Risk Register

Risk Record Template


Risk ID: RISK-[XXX] Date Identified: [Date] Source: ☐ Nexus SecOps Assessment ☐ Incident PIR ☐ Threat Intelligence ☐ Audit ☐ Self-identified

Risk Title: [Short, descriptive title]

Risk Description: [Describe the risk scenario: the threat source, threat event, and potential consequences. Use format: "Due to [vulnerability/gap], [threat actor/event] could [impact], resulting in [consequence]."]

Risk Category:

Category ☐ Check
Detection gap
Staff dependency
Tool availability / single point of failure
AI/ML model failure
Compliance gap
Insider threat
Supply chain
Process gap
Skill / knowledge gap

Nexus SecOps Controls Related: - [Nexus SecOps-XXX — Control Title] - [Nexus SecOps-XXX — Control Title]

Inherent Risk (before controls):

Value
Likelihood [1–5]
Impact [1–5]
Inherent Risk Score
Inherent Risk Rating ☐ Critical ☐ High ☐ Medium ☐ Low

Existing Controls: [Describe what controls are currently in place that reduce this risk]

Residual Risk (after existing controls):

Value
Likelihood [1–5]
Impact [1–5]
Residual Risk Score
Residual Risk Rating ☐ Critical ☐ High ☐ Medium ☐ Low

Risk Treatment Decision:Mitigate — Implement additional controls ☐ Accept — Risk is within tolerance; no action ☐ Transfer — Insurance or contract ☐ Avoid — Discontinue the activity

Treatment Actions (if Mitigate):

Action Owner Due Date Status
☐ Not started
☐ In progress
☐ Complete

Risk Owner: [Role / Name] Review Date: [Date] Status: ☐ Open ☐ In Treatment ☐ Accepted ☐ Closed


Pre-Populated Risk Examples

The following risks are commonly found in Nexus SecOps assessments. Review each and score for your organization.


Risk ID: RISK-001 Risk Title: Detection Gap — Cloud Identity Attack Techniques

Risk Description: Due to limited detection rules covering cloud identity attacks (Nexus SecOps-047, Nexus SecOps-048), a threat actor could compromise an administrator's cloud identity and conduct lateral movement within cloud tenants without triggering any SOC alert, resulting in data exfiltration or service disruption.

Related Controls: Nexus SecOps-047, Nexus SecOps-048, Nexus SecOps-083 Typical Inherent Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 5 | Score: 20 (Critical) Common Treatment: Implement cloud identity detection rules (BEC, MFA bypass, token theft, impossible travel)


Risk ID: RISK-002 Risk Title: Staff Dependency — Single Detection Domain Expert

Risk Description: Due to reliance on a single analyst who owns a critical detection domain (e.g., OT, cloud, CTI), extended absence or departure of this individual creates a period with no capable oversight of that domain.

Related Controls: Nexus SecOps-205, Nexus SecOps-206, Nexus SecOps-061 Typical Inherent Likelihood: 3 | Impact: 3 | Score: 9 (Medium) Common Treatment: Cross-training program, documentation of domain knowledge, job shadowing


Risk ID: RISK-003 Risk Title: SIEM Availability — Single Point of Failure

Risk Description: Due to no high-availability architecture for the SIEM platform, a platform outage creates a blind period during which attacks cannot be detected, correlated, or alerted on.

Related Controls: Nexus SecOps-015, Nexus SecOps-007 Typical Inherent Likelihood: 2 | Impact: 4 | Score: 8 (Medium) Common Treatment: HA/DR architecture, failover procedure, backup alert mechanisms


Risk ID: RISK-004 Risk Title: AI Model Failure — Anomaly Detection False Positive Surge

Risk Description: Due to model drift in the UEBA/anomaly detection system (Nexus SecOps-177), the model may generate a false positive surge following organizational change (hiring, restructuring, new systems), overwhelming analysts and causing real threats to be missed.

Related Controls: Nexus SecOps-168, Nexus SecOps-174, Nexus SecOps-175, Nexus SecOps-177 Typical Inherent Likelihood: 3 | Impact: 3 | Score: 9 (Medium) Common Treatment: Model drift monitoring, re-training triggers, manual override capability


Risk ID: RISK-005 Risk Title: Compliance Gap — Log Retention Below Regulatory Requirement

Risk Description: Due to storage cost controls, log retention is set to 90 days, below the 12-month requirement for PCI DSS and the 6-month requirement for the organization's GDPR legitimate interest documentation, creating regulatory exposure during an incident investigation.

Related Controls: Nexus SecOps-004, Nexus SecOps-029, Nexus SecOps-212 Typical Inherent Likelihood: 2 | Impact: 4 | Score: 8 (Medium) Common Treatment: Tiered retention (hot/warm/cold storage), compress older logs to reduce cost


Risk ID: RISK-006 Risk Title: LLM Prompt Injection via Malicious Log Content

Risk Description: Due to insufficient input sanitization for the SOC LLM copilot (Nexus SecOps-182), an attacker could embed prompt injection instructions in a phishing email or malware log entry, causing the LLM to provide misleading analysis to the analyst (e.g., "this email is safe to open").

Related Controls: Nexus SecOps-182, Nexus SecOps-183, Nexus SecOps-192 Typical Inherent Likelihood: 2 | Impact: 3 | Score: 6 (Medium) Common Treatment: Instruction separation, input sanitization, output anomaly detection


Risk Register Summary View

Risk ID Title Category Inherent Score Residual Score Rating Owner Next Review
RISK-001 Cloud Identity Detection Gap Detection gap
RISK-002 Staff Dependency — Detection Domain Staff dependency
RISK-003 SIEM Single Point of Failure Tool availability
RISK-004 AI Model Drift AI/ML model failure
RISK-005 Log Retention Compliance Gap Compliance gap
RISK-006 LLM Prompt Injection Process gap

See Findings Template for full assessment finding documentation. See Nexus SecOps Scoring for control-level scoring guidance.