The Imperative of Incident Commanders in Cybersecurity Responses
When organizations face cyber incidents, they often confront a disconcerting reality: the established structures they had assumed were effective fall short. In the throes of an incident, the information technology (IT) department waits for security teams to implement necessary changes in systems and networks. At the same time, Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) field urgent communication from board members while grappling with the evolving insights from their security teams on the frontline. Legal departments are keen to ascertain what information should be disclosed, while communications teams inquire about the appropriate public messaging. The glaring absence in this chaotic scenario? A formally designated Incident Commander.
This situation reflects the limitations of the current incident response model, which has become increasingly strained due to unclear roles, competing priorities, and inconsistent organizational frameworks. In some organizations, the Incident Commander role may be a primary responsibility, whereas in others, it may be an additional duty shouldered by the CISO or another security team member.
Historically, the approach to incident response has hinged on the belief that these situations are primarily technical challenges; the priority has been to contain the threat, curb its proliferation, restore affected systems, and then craft a post-incident analysis. This perspective was sufficient during a time when threats were relatively isolated, infrequent, and held minimal implications outside the security domain.
However, today’s teams operate in a dramatically different context. Upon discovering a cyber incident, awareness quickly spreads across the whole organization, necessitating cross-functional collaboration, precise business coordination, and a clear understanding of accountability for decision-making processes. Once an incident is identified, the clock starts ticking on regulatory and customer notification obligations. Board members, now acutely aware of the reputational and financial ramifications of high-impact incidents, begin exerting pressure on C-level executives. This urgency applies to incidents of varying magnitudes; even seemingly minor issues can precipitate complex decisions. This heightened awareness of the stakes is largely beneficial, but it also subjects security teams to unprecedented scrutiny.
Despite the expanded scope of incident responses, the organizational structures that support these efforts have lagged significantly. Even well-resourced and highly trained security teams often find themselves improvising their operational models during high-pressure situations.
Understanding the Role of an Incident Commander
A critical omission in many incident response programs is a clearly defined Incident Commander—an individual tasked explicitly with synchronizing the response across involved functions, keeping pertinent stakeholders informed without dragging them into minutiae, and maintaining accountability during fast-paced developments. This role differs fundamentally from that of the CISO. While the CISO holds responsibility for the overall security incident and remains accountable to the board, regulatory bodies, and executives, the Incident Commander expertly orchestrates the incident response. This includes tracking the activities of various teams, ensuring they have necessary resources, and shielding the response efforts from unnecessary disruptions.
In many cases, the CISO, Deputy CISO, or a senior security leader becomes responsible for both roles. This duality creates an unsustainable situation where one individual is burdened by an array of competing demands, particularly in moments when clarity is critical. Such competing demands may lead to slower decision-making, increased gaps in team coordination, and insufficient information reaching executive leadership.
Proactively Establishing the Role
While many organizations currently lack a designated Incident Commander, this concept is slowly gaining traction, particularly within larger entities. Successful organizations are those that identify this role early, thoughtfully staff it, and cultivate credibility through practice before a crisis emerges.
Some companies appoint individuals from within their security teams who demonstrate strong coordination abilities and communication skills under pressure. Others seek candidates beyond the security domain, focusing on individuals with expertise in program management and cross-functional communication. In one instance, a forward-thinking CISO sought an individual from the customer success team, leveraging their skills to oversee incident management effectively.
It is a common misconception that technical depth is essential for an incident lead. In reality, the role requires an individual who can follow technical developments without being directly responsible for executing them. The ability to coordinate among teams that speak different functional languages, hold others accountable without direct authority, and maintain an overarching view of the incident is paramount. Strong communication skills and the capacity to work efficiently under pressure are critical, especially when multiple stakeholders are involved.
Institutionalizing the Role
Establishing the Incident Commander role must occur before any incident takes place. Organizational leadership should clearly delineate who will be in charge of managing incidents, as distinct from ownership roles. Conducting realistic, cross-functional training exercises is crucial for fostering both the credibility of the role and the relationships that are essential for effective incident management.
The current landscape of incident response must evolve. Organizations do not require drastic restructuring to improve their incident command capabilities; what is necessary is a clear definition of the person responsible for this role, the authority they possess during crises, and how this position interacts with the CISO, IT, engineering, compliance, legal, communications, and executive leadership. Establishing this foundational framework will yield significant benefits as soon as an incident arises.