CISO briefing · 30 minutes · no demo
The CISO's MFT Exposure Review
Four diagnostic questions, one page of output, thirty minutes. You leave with an exposure map you can put in front of your security committee or board.
- Your examiner asked for transfer evidence and it took weeks to assemble
- You can't produce a current list of who exchanges regulated data with you
- Your file-transfer vendor's last CVE made you check whether you were in scope
No demo. No follow-up sequence unless you ask. The worksheet is yours either way.
CISO briefing · worksheet
File-Exchange Exposure Map
A working artifact from your 30-minute session
- 01Exposure surface
- 02Credential model
- 03Audit evidence
- 04Breach readiness
01 · Exposure surface
How many external parties, and how sensitive is what they touch?
02 · Credential model
Individual, shared, or service-bound, and rotated how often?
03 · Audit evidence
What did you hand your examiner, and what did it not answer?
04 · Breach readiness
Vendor breach tomorrow: your obligation, and your timeline.
The cheapest time to find out what your transfer evidence doesn't cover is before someone asks you for it. Every team that has done this under examination pressure wishes they had done it a quarter earlier.
What you leave with
The artifact is yours to use regardless of whether you ever work with us, which is why the blank worksheet is a download rather than a form.
- A one-page exposure map suitable for your security committee or board.
- A buyer scorecard that separates your evaluation criteria from your team's technical criteria. The four answers become the framework you carry into the decision.
- An honest read on where your current platform is a risk surface, and which of the three paths your organization is actually closest to.
The four questions we work through
None of them need a data pull to answer. Several of them are most useful when the honest answer is "I'm not sure".
01
Exposure surface
How many external parties exchange regulated data through your file-transfer platform today, and how is that exposure distributed by data sensitivity?
A good answer looks like: A rough count you can defend, broken down by PHI / PCI / financial / contractual. Not a number only the platform admin could produce.
02
Credential model
How is each external party credentialed, and what's your rotation cadence? Are accounts individual, shared, or service-bound?
A good answer looks like: You can name which categories are shared and say when they were last rotated. "We rotate frequently" is the answer that means no.
03
Audit evidence
When your examiner last asked for transfer evidence, what did you hand them, how long did it take, and what didn't your evidence answer?
A good answer looks like: A named artifact, a real production time, and an honest list of the questions it couldn't close.
04
Breach readiness
If your file-transfer vendor announced a breach affecting your data tomorrow, what's your notification obligation and your timeline to demonstrate scope and containment?
A good answer looks like: You can state the clock you're on and say which of scope or containment you'd struggle to evidence first.
The three outcomes
Across the four answers, security teams land in one of three places. Only one of them is a project, and we'll tell you which one you're in.
You're fine
Status quo, hardened
The platform is sound and the gaps are operational: rotation cadence, evidence tooling, supplemental monitoring. You leave with a short, specific hardening list and no vendor conversation.
Worth pressing
Renewal with stricter requirements
The architecture holds but the evidence and breach-response answers don't. The next renewal becomes the leverage point, and the map becomes the requirements list you take into it.
There's work
Platform replacement
The gaps trace to an architectural root cause that hardening won't reach. That's a 12–18 month program, and the map is what you use to scope and fund it.
Before you book
- Is this a sales call in disguise?
- No. We don't show you MnemoShare unless your own answers surface something that maps to what we do, and even then only if you ask. If the session ends with us telling you your current stack is fine, that's a normal outcome and we'll say so plainly.
- What if we're happy with our incumbent?
- Then you leave with a documented, dated artifact saying so, which is useful evidence in its own right for a board, an auditor, or a diligence questionnaire.
- Can I just have the worksheet without the call?
- Yes. The download is right there, no email required. It's designed to be self-serve. The session mostly saves you time and adds an outside read on your answers.
- We're mid-contract. Is this premature?
- No. Mid-contract is when the hardening path is most useful, because it's the only one available to you right now. It's also when you have the most time to build the evidence case for what you'd want at renewal.
You will be asked to evidence this eventually. Better on your calendar than theirs.
Thirty minutes, four questions, and a one-page map you own, whether the answer is that your platform is fine or that it isn't.
No demo. No follow-up sequence unless you ask. The worksheet is yours either way.