“If your security tools detected the attack after operations were already disrupted, would your business still survive the damage?”
That is the uncomfortable question many organizations are now facing after the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency launched its new CI Fortify initiative focused on operational technology and critical infrastructure resilience.
The exercise is not just another government cybersecurity recommendation. It reflects a growing reality that many organizations are unprepared for cyberattacks that disrupt communications, compromise operational technology environments, and continue operating even while defenders attempt to respond.
According to the source report from Industrial Cyber, CISA’s CI Fortify initiative is designed to prepare operators for scenarios where communications are disrupted and attackers may already have access to operational technology environments.
Source: https://industrialcyber.co/cisa/cisas-ci-fortify-prepares-operators-for-cyber-scenarios-involving-disrupted-communications-and-ot-compromise/
So what exactly is CISA warning about?
CISA is encouraging organizations to prepare for situations where traditional assumptions no longer apply.
In these scenarios:
- Third-party communications may fail
- Vendors and remote support channels may become unavailable
- Operational technology systems may already be compromised
- Organizations may need to isolate systems quickly to continue operating safely
This is a major shift in cybersecurity thinking.
For years, many organizations focused heavily on detecting threats after attackers entered the environment. But CI Fortify assumes attackers may already be inside critical systems before defenders even realize it.
That changes everything.
Instead of asking, “Can we detect the attack?” organizations are now being forced to ask:
“Can we continue operating safely if attackers get in anyway?”
Why is this such a serious business issue?
Most executives still think of cyberattacks primarily as IT problems.
But operational technology attacks create real-world business disruption.
When attackers impact industrial systems, manufacturing environments, utilities, transportation systems, healthcare infrastructure, or supply chains, the consequences can include:
- Operational shutdowns
- Production delays
- Revenue loss
- Supply chain disruption
- Regulatory scrutiny
- Safety risks
- Reputational damage
According to IBM’s 2024 Cost of a Data Breach Report, the global average cost of a data breach reached $4.88 million, the highest level recorded to date. IBM also found that 70% of organizations experienced significant operational disruption after a breach.
https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/whats-new-2024-cost-of-a-data-breach-report
The Verizon 2025 Data Breach Investigations Report also revealed that ransomware appeared in 51% of breaches in the Asia-Pacific region, highlighting how operational disruption has become a primary attacker objective.
https://www.verizon.com/about/news/2025-data-breach-investigations-report-apac
For organizations that rely on uptime, production continuity, and operational availability, those risks are impossible to ignore.
Why are attackers still getting past security tools?
Because modern attacks no longer depend on obviously malicious files.
Many attackers now rely on:
- Credential abuse
- Living off the land techniques
- Legitimate administrative tools
- Remote access compromise
- VPN exploitation
- Security tool tampering
- Trusted third-party access
This allows attackers to operate quietly inside environments while blending in with normal activity.
In operational technology environments, this problem becomes even harder because many systems cannot easily be patched or taken offline for maintenance.
Research examining operational technology vulnerabilities found that only a small percentage of known exploitable OT vulnerabilities included vendor-provided mitigation alternatives beyond patching.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.06951
That means organizations often remain exposed longer than expected.
Meanwhile, attackers continue accelerating.
The Verizon DBIR findings showed vulnerability exploitation becoming one of the fastest-growing attack methods, while ransomware continues spreading rapidly across industries.
https://www.verizon.com/about/news/2025-data-breach-investigations-report-apac
Could this happen even if we already have EDR?
Yes.
This is one of the most important lessons organizations must understand.
EDR and traditional detect-and-respond tools can help identify suspicious activity, but they often depend on recognizing malicious behavior after execution has already started.
That delay matters.
Modern ransomware groups can move through environments quickly, escalate privileges, disable security tools, and spread laterally before defenders fully respond.
Some attacks intentionally target security infrastructure itself.
Others abuse legitimate tools that appear normal to detection systems.
And in operational environments, even short disruptions can create significant financial and operational consequences.
That is why many security leaders are rethinking the assumption that detection alone is enough.
So what is changing in cybersecurity strategy?
Organizations are increasingly shifting toward prevention-focused security models designed to stop unauthorized activity before execution occurs.
This is where Isolation and Containment becomes important.
Instead of relying primarily on detecting suspicious behavior after compromise, prevention-first approaches focus on:
- Restricting unauthorized applications
- Preventing malicious code execution
- Limiting attacker movement
- Reducing attack surface exposure
- Containing compromise before spread occurs
- Minimizing operational blast radius
This approach is particularly valuable in operational technology and critical infrastructure environments where downtime is costly and response windows are limited.
CISA’s CI Fortify planning assumptions reinforce this direction by emphasizing operational isolation capability, not just detection capability.
The conversation is evolving from:
“How quickly can we respond?”
to:
“How do we stop the damage from spreading in the first place?”
Why does Isolation and Containment matter so much now?
Because modern attackers are exploiting trust.
They use legitimate credentials.
They abuse approved applications.
They operate through remote access pathways.
They compromise third-party providers.
And increasingly, they move faster than traditional response teams can react.
Isolation and Containment changes the equation by reducing what attackers are allowed to execute or access, even if they successfully enter the environment.
This helps organizations:
- Prevent ransomware encryption before it starts
- Stop unauthorized applications from running
- Reduce lateral movement
- Protect critical operational systems
- Maintain resilience during communications disruption
This is also why many organizations are evaluating prevention-first technologies like AppGuard, a proven endpoint protection solution with a 10-year track record focused on prevention through Isolation and Containment.
The goal is not simply detecting compromise faster.
The goal is preventing attackers from causing operational damage at all.
What Should Businesses Do Next?
Business leaders should assume that some attacks will bypass traditional detection systems.
That does not mean organizations are defenseless. It means cybersecurity strategies must evolve.
Practical next steps include:
- Assume detection alone will eventually fail
- Add prevention-focused security layers
- Reduce unnecessary endpoint execution freedom
- Segment operational technology environments
- Restrict remote access pathways
- Review third-party vendor access
- Test communication disruption scenarios
- Prepare incident response and recovery plans
- Identify systems that cannot tolerate downtime
- Practice operational isolation procedures before a crisis occurs
Most importantly, organizations should evaluate whether their current cybersecurity strategy is designed merely to detect attacks or to prevent operational disruption altogether.
That distinction is becoming increasingly important.
Final Thoughts
CISA’s CI Fortify initiative reflects a major shift in how governments and security leaders view cyber resilience.
The assumption is no longer that organizations can always stop attackers from getting in.
The assumption is that organizations must be prepared to continue operating safely even when compromise occurs.
That requires more than monitoring alerts.
It requires reducing execution freedom, limiting attacker movement, and containing threats before operational damage spreads.
Business owners who want to better understand how prevention-first security can stop attacks before damage occurs should talk with CHIPS about how AppGuard can help prevent incidents like this through Isolation and Containment.
Like this article? Please share it with others!
