Security Operations Assessment and Risk Reduction Plan

Independent simulationPython & data analysisIdentity securityRisk advisory

I analyzed a synthetic authentication dataset for a fictional mid-sized organization, applied transparent triage rules to identify high-priority patterns, and translated the findings into a risk register and phased remediation plan.

Scope and integrity note. This is a portfolio simulation using fabricated data, not a real client engagement, production security assessment, or evidence of an actual compromise. Scenario labels are included in the data so reviewers can reproduce the exercise. In a real engagement, conclusions would require validation against identity-provider records, user context, and organizational baselines.

Executive Summary

600

synthetic authentication events reviewed

30 days

simulated observation period

scenario categories examined

90 days

proposed remediation horizon

The exercise focuses on four identity-security scenarios: repeated authentication failures across multiple accounts, successful sign-ins tagged as unusual-location activity, legacy-style authentication without an MFA challenge, and privileged sign-ins without an MFA challenge. These are deliberately constructed test cases, not independently confirmed malicious activity.

Business Question

How should a 250-person professional-services company prioritize identity and authentication improvements when security staff have limited time and need to explain technical findings to leadership?

The assessment emphasizes controls with direct relevance to account compromise risk, clear ownership, practical implementation sequencing, and measurable outcomes.

Methodology

Defined the scope. Used a fabricated 30-day authentication dataset with timestamps, user IDs, source IPs, application names, authentication outcomes, MFA results, and device-management status.
Applied transparent triage rules. Flagged repeated failures from a single source across multiple accounts, unusual-location scenario events, legacy-style authentication without an MFA challenge, and privileged successful sign-ins without an MFA challenge.
Documented limitations. Treated each match as a lead for validation, not proof of compromise. Location anomalies alone are especially prone to false positives.
Prioritized treatment. Ranked recommendations by potential business impact and urgency, then mapped them to a 30/60/90-day sequence.
Defined success measures. Proposed control-coverage and operational metrics that a real organization could track over time.

Key Findings

Priority	Finding	Simulated evidence	Recommended response
Critical	Privileged successful sign-ins without MFA challenge	10 constructed events	Validate sessions and policies; require MFA for privileged accounts; document exceptions.
High	Repeated failures across multiple accounts	60 failed attempts across 8 accounts from one source	Review targeted accounts and source; tune alerts; validate smart-lockout controls.
High	Legacy-style authentication without MFA challenge	15 constructed events	Inventory dependencies and disable legacy protocols where feasible.
Medium pending validation	Successful sign-ins tagged as unusual-location activity	15 constructed events	Correlate location with VPN, device, travel, and sign-in history before escalation.

Interpretation: The counts describe how the synthetic test data were constructed. They are not estimates of attack frequency or evidence that an actual organization experienced these events.

Recommended 30/60/90-Day Roadmap

Timing	Actions	Outcome to measure
Days 0–30	Require MFA for privileged accounts; review privileged sessions and policy exceptions; validate lockout settings; assign finding owners.	All privileged accounts covered or documented as approved exceptions; actions have accountable owners.
Days 31–60	Inventory legacy authentication; remove it where feasible; create an identity-alert triage playbook.	Legacy authentication disabled or exception-approved; playbook tested on representative events.
Days 61–90	Expand managed-device controls for sensitive apps; run an incident-response tabletop; establish monthly reporting.	Coverage, triage time, validation rate, overdue actions, and exceptions reported to leadership.

Risk Register

The downloadable register includes risk domain, observation, estimated likelihood and impact, priority, treatment, success measure, and target window. Ratings are preliminary planning judgments for this fictional scenario, not calibrated risk estimates.

Download risk register (CSV)Download triage findings (CSV)View analysis summary (JSON)

Deliverables and Reproducibility

Executive brief (PDF) Brief (Markdown) Dataset (CSV) Analysis script (Python) Methodology and run instructions

The analysis script uses pandas and writes a summary JSON and triage findings CSV. See the README for the run command and the exact rules used.

Framework References

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 — organizing risk management and governance recommendations.
NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3 — incident response recommendations and considerations.
CISA guidance on phishing-resistant MFA — reference for stronger authentication.
MITRE ATT&CK T1110: Brute Force — terminology reference for repeated authentication attempts.

These sources inform the framing; this project does not claim certification, formal compliance, or complete control-framework coverage.

What This Project Demonstrates

Turning raw event data into documented, reproducible triage findings.
Separating suspicious signals from confirmed incidents and accounting for false positives.
Prioritizing identity-security controls using business impact and implementation sequence.
Communicating technical observations through a risk register, executive brief, and measurable roadmap.