Cybersecurity & Incident Response

Root cause analysis of a cyber incident requires a methodical reconstruction of the attack timeline, from initial access through to the point of detection and containment. This involves examination of log data (where available), network traffic records, endpoint telemetry, and the technical artefacts left by the attacker. In my experience, the availability and quality of forensic evidence varies considerably between matters; in some cases, log retention policies or the attacker's own actions may have reduced the evidence available. The analysis must account for these limitations and clearly distinguish between what can be determined with confidence and what remains uncertain based on the available data.

Assessment of whether security controls were adequate is typically measured against the standard of care that would be expected of a reasonably competent organisation in the same sector at the relevant time. The benchmarks used depend on the context of the matter and may include ISO 27001, the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, Cyber Essentials, or sector-specific regulatory requirements. The assessment considers not only whether specific technical controls were in place (such as multi-factor authentication, patching regimes, or network segmentation) but also whether the organisation's governance, risk management, and staff awareness programmes were appropriate. It is important to note that the presence or absence of a single control is not, in itself, determinative; the assessment considers the overall security posture in the round.

In cyber insurance disputes, the technical evidence often addresses whether the insured met the conditions of coverage, whether the incident falls within the policy's scope, and the technical causation of the loss. In regulatory matters, the expert may be asked to assess whether the organisation's security practices met the requirements of the relevant regulatory framework (for example, the UK GDPR or sector-specific rules) at the time of the incident. In each case, the analysis must be grounded in the facts as they existed at the material time, and must avoid the application of hindsight to standards and practices that have evolved since the incident occurred.