Create Risk Register Management runbook

rules_bank/LLMS-SITEMAP.md

@@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ rules_bank/
     ├── [DOC] post_incident_review.md
     ├── [DOC] prioritize_and_investigate_a_case.md
     ├── [DOC] proactive_threat_hunting_based_on_gti_campain_or_actor.md
+    ├── [DOC] risk_register.md [HIGH] -> references: common_steps/document_in_soar.md
     ├── [DOC] suspicious_login_triage.md -> references: common_steps/enrich_ioc.md
     ├── [DOC] triage_alerts.md [HIGH] -> references: common_steps/check_duplicate_cases.md
     └── [DOC] ueba_report.md [PLACEHOLDER]

rules_bank/run_books/risk_register.md

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+---
+title: "Risk Register Management"
+type: "runbook"
+category: "security_operations"
+status: "active"
+tags:
+  - risk_management
+  - compliance
+  - governance
+  - strategic_planning
+---
+
+# Risk Register Management
+
+In security operations (SecOps) and broader information security, a **Risk Register** is a centralized, living document or database used to identify, evaluate, track, and manage security risks across an organization.
+If your SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) and security alerts deal with the *immediate tactical reality* (e.g., "Active brute-force attack on Port 22"), the Risk Register deals with the *strategic business reality* (e.g., "Legacy authentication systems lack MFA, creating a high probability of credential stuffing").
+It acts as the bridge between technical vulnerabilities and business impact, allowing security teams to prioritize what gets fixed first based on data rather than gut feeling.
+
+## Objective
+
+To define the structure, lifecycle, and operational workflow for managing a Risk Register in a SecOps environment, ensuring risks are systematically identified, assessed, treated, and reviewed.
+
+## Scope
+
+This runbook covers the end-to-end lifecycle of tracking security risks—from initial identification through to ongoing review. It applies to all strategic risks impacting the organization's information security posture.
+
+## Inputs
+
+*   `${NEW_RISK_DATA}`: Details of a newly identified risk (e.g., from threat hunts, audits, pentests).
+*   `${EXISTING_RISK_ID}`: The ID of an existing risk to be reviewed or updated.
+*   `${TREATMENT_PLAN}`: The proposed mitigation, acceptance, transfer, or avoidance strategy.
+
+## Tools
+
+*   `GRC Platform` or `Shared Repository` (to store and update the register).
+*   `secops-soar` (to track tasks related to risk mitigation).
+
+## Core Attributes of a Risk Register
+
+While formats range from a simple shared spreadsheet to dedicated GRC platforms, a functional risk register typically tracks these core attributes:
+
+| Field | Purpose | Concrete Example |
+| :---- | :---- | :---- |
+| **Risk ID** | A unique identifier for tracking. | RSK-2026-042 |
+| **Description** | Clearly states the threat, vulnerability, and consequence. | Unpatched Apache server in the DMZ could allow remote code execution, leading to customer data exfiltration. |
+| **Risk Owner** | The specific person or team accountable for managing the risk. | VP of Infrastructure / SecOps Lead |
+| **Inherent Risk** | The raw risk score (Likelihood × Impact) *before* any controls are applied. | **High** (Likelihood: 4/5, Impact: 5/5) |
+| **Treatment Plan** | The decision made: Mitigate, Accept, Transfer (insurance), or Avoid. | **Mitigate** via virtual patching, followed by server migration. |
+| **Residual Risk** | The remaining risk score *after* implementing the treatment plan. | **Low** (Likelihood: 1/5, Impact: 2/5) |
+| **Status & Review** | Current progress and the next scheduled reassessment date. | *In Progress* — Next review: Oct 1, 2026 |
+
+## Why SecOps Relies on It
+
+1.  **Defends Resource Allocation:** When SecOps needs budget for a new tool or engineering hours to refactor legacy code, pointing to a documented "Critical" risk on the register provides business justification to leadership.
+2.  **Prevents Alert Fatigue Traps:** A vulnerability scanner might flag 5,000 "high-severity" CVEs. The risk register helps map which of those actually expose critical business assets, filtering the noise.
+3.  **Maintains Continuity:** If a key security engineer leaves, the organization doesn't lose track of accepted risks or ongoing remediation projects.
+4.  **Audit & Compliance Proof:** Frameworks like SOC 2, ISO 27001, and NIST explicitly require organizations to prove they have a formalized, repeatable process for tracking and treating risk.
+
+## Workflow Steps & Diagram
+
+A risk register follows a continuous loop:
+
+1.  **Identification:** Spot a new risk via threat hunting, penetration tests, vendor disclosures, or internal audits. If `${NEW_RISK_DATA}` is provided, use it as the primary source for the entry.
+2.  **Assessment:** Score the risk using a standardized framework (like NIST SP 800-30 or FAIR) to keep scoring objective. If `${EXISTING_RISK_ID}` is provided, retrieve the current record for reassessment.
+3.  **Treatment:** Assign and take action (Mitigate, Accept, Transfer, Avoid). Incorporate the `${TREATMENT_PLAN}` if one has been proposed.
+4.  **Review:** Reassess risks quarterly or annually to ensure mitigation controls are still holding up.
+
+```mermaid
+sequenceDiagram
+    participant Analyst as Analyst/Agent
+    participant GRC as GRC Platform/Register
+    participant Owner as Risk Owner
+
+    Analyst->>Analyst: 1. Identification (Threat Hunt, Audit, etc.)
+    Analyst->>GRC: 2. Create Risk Entry with Description
+    Analyst->>Analyst: 3. Assessment (Score Inherent Risk)
+    Analyst->>GRC: 4. Update Risk Entry with Score
+    Analyst->>Owner: 5. Assign Risk
+    Owner->>Owner: 6. Determine Treatment Plan
+    Owner->>GRC: 7. Update Treatment & Residual Risk
+    loop Periodic Review
+        Analyst->>GRC: 8. Review Risk Status
+        Analyst->>Analyst: 9. Reassess Controls
+        Analyst->>GRC: 10. Update Next Review Date
+    end
+```
+
+## Completion Criteria
+
+*   The risk has been fully documented with all required attributes (ID, Description, Owner, Inherent Risk, Treatment Plan, Residual Risk, Status & Review).
+*   The risk has been accurately recorded in the central Risk Register.
+*   A review schedule has been established and noted.
+*   The agent generates an execution timestamp and runtime metrics summary upon completion.
+
+## Rubric
+
+**Error Handling & Resilience:**
+- Did the agent gracefully handle situations where risk data was incomplete (e.g., missing impact scores) by requesting clarification rather than hallucinating values?
+
+**Process Adherence:**
+- Did the agent properly evaluate the risk through the full Identification, Assessment, Treatment, and Review lifecycle?
+- Were the core attributes (Risk ID, Description, Owner, Scores) correctly mapped and populated?
+
+**Output Verification:**
+- Did the agent generate the Mermaid sequence diagram mapping the execution workflow?
+- Were execution timestamp and runtime metrics logged in the final output?