Certified: The GIAC GSOM Audio Course

In this episode, we’re going to focus on something that decides whether an incident response feels coordinated or chaotic: building communication paths and decision points ahead of time, before the first real incident forces everyone to improvise. New learners often assume communication is just sending updates, but during security events, communication is a control mechanism that keeps the organization aligned on reality, priorities, and safe actions. When the right people receive the right information at the right time, response speeds up and damage is limited. When communication is unclear, teams repeat work, take conflicting actions, and lose time arguing about what is true. Decision points are equally important because many response actions affect business operations, and hesitation or confusion about who can authorize those actions is one of the most common causes of delay. Building these paths early turns response into a practiced routine instead of a panic-driven scramble.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

A useful way to think about communication paths is to separate information flow from decision flow, because those are related but not identical. Information flow is how evidence, observations, and status updates move between people and teams so that everyone shares the same picture. Decision flow is how approvals and authority move so that actions like isolating systems, disabling accounts, or contacting external parties happen quickly and responsibly. If information flow is weak, decisions are made with poor context, which leads to mistakes. If decision flow is weak, even good information cannot turn into action, and the incident grows while the team waits. Many organizations build one flow and forget the other, such as having a chat channel for updates but no clear authority for containment decisions. A mature approach intentionally designs both flows, so the Security Operations Center (S O C) can share evidence quickly while leadership can authorize actions without confusion. This separation also makes it easier to diagnose problems later, because you can tell whether delays were caused by missing information or unclear authority.

Communication paths should be designed around who needs to know what, not around who happens to be available, because response quality depends on relevance and clarity. The S O C needs to communicate with identity owners, endpoint owners, network owners, application owners, and business leadership, but each group needs a different kind of message. Technical teams need concrete evidence, time windows, and pivot identifiers so they can validate and take targeted action. Business leadership needs impact-oriented summaries, likely risk scenarios, and clear tradeoffs, because they must approve actions that can disrupt operations. Legal, privacy, and compliance stakeholders may need to know about certain categories of events, especially those involving sensitive data, but they do not need the raw log stream. A well-designed communication path avoids flooding everyone with everything, because overload leads to missed details and panic. Instead, it establishes a predictable rhythm and format so recipients know what to expect and what to do with the information. Predictability is what turns communication into coordination rather than noise.

To build reliable paths, you need named roles, even if the same person fills multiple roles in a small organization, because roles reduce ambiguity about responsibilities. The S O C analyst role focuses on evidence gathering, correlation, and hypothesis testing, turning alerts into validated findings. A technical responder role focuses on taking approved actions on systems, such as access restrictions, isolation, or configuration changes, while coordinating with system owners. A coordination role, often called an Incident Commander (I C), focuses on keeping the overall effort organized, tracking decisions, and ensuring that parallel work does not conflict. A communication role may be needed to manage status updates, internal messaging, and escalation, especially when leadership needs frequent clarity without pulling analysts away from investigation. These roles matter because incidents create parallel work, and parallel work requires someone to coordinate priorities and protect focus. Without roles, everyone tries to do everything, which feels busy but often produces duplicated effort and conflicting actions. With roles, communication becomes more structured, and the organization can move faster with fewer mistakes.

Decision points should be defined as specific moments in the incident lifecycle where action is required, not vague ideas like decide what to do, because vague decision points invite debate. A decision point might be whether to treat an event as an incident rather than routine alert handling, because that triggers broader coordination and formal tracking. Another decision point might be whether to contain now or continue investigation, because containment can prevent damage but can also disrupt operations and alter evidence. Another decision point might be whether to disable an account, because that can stop an attacker but can also block legitimate work and create urgent business impact. Another might be whether to isolate a system, which can prevent lateral spread but can break dependencies and cause outages. Defining these points early means you can define the evidence threshold and the approval authority for each one, so teams do not argue during the most time-sensitive moments. Decision points also create a shared tempo, because everyone knows which decisions are pending and what information is needed to make them. When decision points are designed upfront, response becomes calmer and more deliberate even under stress.

A practical readiness habit is to define what information must be included when the S O C escalates to decision makers, because escalation without a complete evidence package often leads to delay and repeated questioning. An evidence package should include a clear description of the suspected behavior, the identities and assets involved, the time window, and what makes the behavior unusual. It should include the current confidence level and what additional evidence would raise or lower that confidence, so decision makers understand uncertainty instead of assuming certainty. It should include likely impact scenarios tied to business context, such as whether critical services could be disrupted or whether sensitive data could be exposed, without overstating what is not yet proven. It should also include recommended options with tradeoffs, such as a low-disruption monitoring step versus a higher-disruption containment step, so leadership can choose with clarity. This is not a sales pitch, but a decision aid, and its purpose is to shorten the time between detection and authorized action. When the evidence package is consistent, leadership trust increases and response speed improves.

Communication paths must also account for speed versus accuracy, because incidents force you to communicate while the picture is still incomplete. The best practice is to communicate what is known, what is suspected, and what is unknown as separate ideas, because mixing them creates confusion and later distrust. If an early hypothesis is communicated as fact and later corrected, leadership may lose confidence and begin demanding excessive proof for every update, which slows response. If uncertainty is communicated too cautiously without indicating what risk might be present, leadership may delay action until harm has already occurred. A mature communication style uses careful language that preserves credibility while still conveying urgency when warranted, and it avoids emotional or dramatic phrasing that can cause panic. It also avoids overly technical detail when speaking to non-technical audiences, not by hiding facts, but by translating them into operational impact and clear options. When the communication style is consistent, the organization learns to interpret updates correctly, and coordination becomes smoother over time.

Decision points should be paired with pre-approved action ranges whenever possible, because the biggest delays often occur when teams must request permission for routine, low-risk validation steps. For example, the S O C may need authority to perform additional log queries, enable specific monitoring views, or request temporary increases in logging verbosity, and those should not require executive approval each time. Similarly, certain containment actions might be pre-approved under defined conditions, such as temporarily restricting a suspicious session for a privileged account when evidence meets a threshold. The goal is not to grant unlimited power, but to remove unnecessary friction for actions that are reversible and low impact. Higher-impact actions, like isolating a production system, should have clearer approval paths and explicit decision owners, because the business must accept the tradeoff. When action ranges are defined, the team can move quickly through early steps and reserve leadership attention for truly business-impacting choices. This reduces the chance that leadership becomes overwhelmed with minor requests and then slow to respond when major decisions are needed. Pre-approval, when designed carefully, is a major chaos reducer.

A strong communication path also includes a way to coordinate between technical teams, because many incidents require synchronized actions across identity, endpoint, network, and application domains. If one team resets an account while another team is monitoring active sessions, the timeline can become confusing and evidence can be lost. If one team blocks network access while another team is trying to confirm whether data movement is ongoing, the investigation can be disrupted. Coordination means announcing planned actions, capturing the time they occur, and confirming outcomes, so the rest of the team can interpret subsequent evidence correctly. This is where the I C role often helps, because someone must track what actions are planned and ensure that actions do not conflict. Coordination also depends on having a single source of truth for the incident record, so updates are not scattered across multiple channels and lost. When technical coordination is strong, response actions become precise, and the investigation narrative remains coherent. When coordination is weak, teams unintentionally work against each other, even with good intentions.

Communication paths should also protect sensitive information, because incident details can include private data, internal system weaknesses, and evidence that could be misused if widely shared. A common beginner mistake is assuming more transparency is always better, when in incident response, information must be shared with purpose and control. This does not mean secrecy for its own sake, but it does mean that certain evidence should be shared only with those who need it to make decisions or perform actions. It also means that external communication, such as messaging to customers, partners, or media, should follow a controlled process and typically should not be improvised by technical teams. Internal messaging should also avoid oversharing raw evidence in broad channels, because that increases the chance of misunderstanding and can create unnecessary alarm. A mature communication plan defines which channels are appropriate for which kinds of information and who is authorized to share what. This protection preserves trust and reduces legal and reputational risk while still enabling fast technical coordination. When confidentiality is considered upfront, teams can communicate confidently rather than cautiously withholding everything out of fear.

Decision points should explicitly include a moment for scope management, because incidents often expand as evidence appears, and unmanaged scope expansion creates either panic or denial. A scope decision point is where the team decides which systems and identities are likely involved, which are likely not involved, and what evidence would change that boundary. This matters because overly broad scope can cause unnecessary disruption, while overly narrow scope can allow an attacker to persist unnoticed. The S O C supports this by using pivot-based investigations, linking identity activity, endpoint behavior, and network patterns to determine whether the incident appears localized or widespread. Communication around scope should be clear, because leadership will ask whether critical systems are affected, and technical teams need to know where to focus containment. Scope decisions should be revisited as new evidence appears, but in a controlled way, with documentation of what changed and why. When scope management is treated as an explicit decision, the team stays aligned and avoids the emotional swing between everything is compromised and nothing is proven. This discipline is one of the clearest markers of mature incident coordination.

Another essential decision point involves when to shift from investigation mode to containment mode, and building that shift ahead of time prevents the team from getting stuck in endless analysis. The shift should be tied to risk thresholds, such as evidence of ongoing malicious activity, evidence of privileged access misuse, or evidence of potential data exposure. The S O C contributes by providing confidence assessments, showing what evidence supports the current hypothesis and what evidence remains missing. Leadership contributes by weighing business impact, such as the cost of downtime versus the cost of potential data loss. A prepared organization agrees ahead of time on how to handle uncertainty, such as taking reversible containment steps when risk is high even if proof is incomplete. This prevents paralysis, because the team does not wait for perfect certainty before limiting harm. At the same time, having defined thresholds prevents overreaction, because the team can justify actions based on agreed criteria rather than fear. When the shift is planned, the organization can respond with speed and discipline instead of oscillating between hesitation and impulsive disruption.

Communication paths should include a consistent update cadence, because ad hoc updates create pressure on analysts and often produce inconsistent messaging. During incidents, leadership and stakeholders want frequent clarity, but constant interruption of investigators slows evidence gathering and increases mistakes. A cadence solves this by setting expectations, such as scheduled updates at defined intervals or at defined milestones, while allowing urgent out-of-band updates only when a decision point requires immediate attention. The content of updates should be structured, including what changed since the last update, what is currently believed, what actions were taken, what decisions are needed next, and what risks are being managed. This structured cadence also helps recipients compare updates over time, making it easier to see progress and reducing repeated questions. It also gives the I C a tool to manage attention, protecting technical teams from constant demands. For beginners, it is important to recognize that update cadence is not bureaucracy, but a throughput control, keeping the investigation moving while keeping leadership informed. When cadence is practiced before incidents, it becomes natural during crises.

A final readiness piece is to integrate communication and decision paths into routine alert operations, because practices that exist only on paper tend to be forgotten when pressure hits. If analysts already classify alerts consistently, document findings in a standard format, and escalate with a clear evidence package, the transition into incident mode becomes smoother. If leadership has already seen clear, structured updates during minor events, they are more likely to trust the S O C during major incidents and approve actions quickly. If technical teams are accustomed to announcing planned changes and recording outcomes, coordination during containment becomes less disruptive. This integration turns incident readiness into a daily habit rather than a special ritual, which prevents drift over time. It also helps reveal gaps early, such as missing contact paths, unclear authority, or confusing communication channels, because those gaps show up during routine operations before they become crisis failures. When you build habits into daily workflows, incident response becomes less about scrambling and more about scaling up familiar behavior. This is how organizations prevent chaos without relying on heroic individuals.

As we close, remember that communication paths and decision points are not soft skills added on top of technical response, but the structure that allows technical evidence to produce timely, coordinated action. Information flow keeps everyone aligned on what is known, while decision flow ensures that containment and recovery actions are authorized and executed without delay or confusion. Roles like S O C analysts, technical responders, and an I C reduce ambiguity and prevent duplicated or conflicting work, while defined decision points create a shared tempo for escalation, containment choices, scope management, and recovery transitions. Consistent evidence packages, careful handling of uncertainty, and structured update cadence protect trust and protect investigation focus, which is critical for speed. Pre-approved action ranges reduce friction for low-risk steps, while clear approval paths ensure high-impact actions are deliberate and defensible. When these paths are built and practiced before the first incident hits, response becomes calmer, faster, and more accurate, because people spend their time solving the problem rather than figuring out how to talk and who is allowed to decide. That is the operational maturity this certification expects, and it is one of the most reliable ways to prevent chaos when the inevitable incident arrives.