Why We Publish Our Entire ISMS Publicly (And Why That Terrifies Competitors)
Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. Including—especially—making your entire Information Security Management System public while your competitors hide theirs behind NDAs and "CONFIDENTIAL" stamps. Most "experts" say publishing your security policies is reckless. We say hiding them is suspicious. What are you hiding? FNORD.
Think for yourself. Question authority. Question why security policies must be secret. Question vendors who say "trust us, we're secure" without showing you proof. Question security through obscurity in an era where attackers have nation-state budgets and your "secret" policies leak in every M&A due diligence anyway.
At Hack23, we're paranoid enough to assume attackers already know our defenses—so we might as well get marketing value and peer review by publishing them. ISMS transparency isn't marketing—it's competitive advantage through verifiable security excellence.
40+ policies on GitHub. Our ISMS is 70% public framework, 30% redacted operational details. (The 30% isn't "our secret sauce"—it's credentials and specific supplier assessments that would bore you to tears.)
Customers verify our security before signing contracts by reading our actual policies, not vendor questionnaires filled with lies. Security researchers review our controls and suggest improvements because we're paranoid enough to want global peer review. Potential clients assess our expertise through actual implementation, not PowerPoint promises. We weaponize transparency.
ILLUMINATION: Welcome to Chapel Perilous, where you realize that if your security depends on attackers not knowing your defenses, you don't have security—you have wishful thinking wrapped in NDAs. Real security survives transparency. Weak security requires obscurity. Which do you have? Are you paranoid enough to let the world verify your security claims, or do you need to hide them?
Our approach: default to public unless specific documented risk requires confidentiality (and "embarrassment" isn't a security risk). Demonstrate security maturity through evidence, not marketing promises. Accept vulnerability discovery through community review over false confidence through obscurity. Full transparency strategy in our public ISMS Transparency Plan. Yes, our transparency plan is also transparent. We're paranoid enough to want meta-review. FNORD.
The Five Principles of Radical ISMS Transparency
1. 🔍 Default to Public
Policies, frameworks, procedures public unless specific risk. Information Security Policy? Public. Classification Framework? Public. Risk Assessment Methodology? Public. Threat Modeling approach? Public. If publishing creates specific exploitable vulnerability, redact that detail—publish the rest.
Rationale: Security frameworks demonstrate expertise. Processes show maturity. Methodologies enable client confidence. Publishing proves we're not hiding incompetence behind "CONFIDENTIAL" markings.
Security through obscurity assumes attackers are lazy. They're not. Transparency assumes attackers know your defenses—so build better defenses.
2. ✅ Demonstrate, Don't Expose
Showcase security maturity without revealing exploitable secrets. Publish encryption standards (AES-256, RSA-4096)—not encryption keys. Publish backup strategy (immutable cross-region vaults)—not backup credentials. Publish MFA requirement (hardware tokens)—not recovery codes.
Implementation: High-level architecture public, specific configurations redacted. Framework compliance public, audit findings private. Security metrics public, incident details confidential.
The goal is proving security competence, not creating attack roadmap. Balance is "here's our defense strategy" vs. "here's exactly how to bypass it."
3. 📝 Redact, Don't Hide
Mixed documents get sanitized versions published. Risk Register: risk categories public, specific financial impacts redacted. Asset Register: asset types public, credentials/IPs confidential. Supplier assessments: methodology public, specific findings private.
Process: Create internal complete version → create public copy → apply redactions ([REDACTED], [Generic Example]) → CEO review → publish to GitHub.
Redaction enables partial transparency where full transparency creates risk. Don't let perfect (100% public) be enemy of good (70% public).
4. 🤝 Trust Through Verification
Customers verify security, don't trust claims. Sales call: "Is your data encrypted?" → "Yes, here's our Cryptography Policy showing AES-256-GCM with AWS KMS." RFP security questionnaire? Link to relevant public ISMS policies. Due diligence? Here's 40+ policies demonstrating comprehensive ISMS.
Competitive Edge: We answer security questions with evidence while competitors make promises. Customers trust verification over vendor claims.
In security sales, "trust us" is what vendors without evidence say. "Here's the public GitHub repo" is what confidence looks like.
5. 🔄 Community Improvement
Public ISMS enables crowd-sourced security review. Security researchers worldwide can review our policies, identify gaps, suggest improvements. GitHub issues for policy feedback. Better than any paid consultant—because community reviewers have diverse expertise and no conflict of interest.
Examples: Policy clarifications from practitioners, framework alignment suggestions, industry best practice updates, regulatory interpretation guidance.
Open source security policy leverages global expertise. Proprietary security policy limited to internal knowledge and expensive consultants.
Public vs. Confidential: What We Publish and Why
| Document Category | Status | Rationale |
|---|
| 📋 Core Security Policies (40+) | ✅ Public | Demonstrates comprehensive ISMS, enables client verification, showcases expertise |
| 🏷️ Classification Framework | ✅ Public | Methodology transparency, business impact categories, demonstrates risk-based approach |
| 📊 Security Metrics Dashboard | ✅ Public | OpenSSF Scorecard, SonarCloud, test coverage—live evidence of security performance |
| 📉 Risk Register | ⚠️ Redacted | Risk categories and methodology public, specific financial impacts and vulnerabilities confidential |
| 💻 Asset Register | ⚠️ Redacted | Asset categories public (Cloud Services, SaaS), specific credentials/IPs/accounts confidential |
| 🚨 Incident Response Plan | ⚠️ Redacted | Process framework and classification SLAs public, specific contact details and escalation paths confidential |
| 🔗 Supplier Security Assessments | ⚠️ Redacted | Assessment methodology public, specific supplier scores and contracts confidential |
| 🏢 Business Plan & Financial Projections | ❌ Confidential | Strategic roadmap, revenue models, and financial projections are competitive information |
Publication Ratio: Approximately 70% public framework (policies, methodologies, standards) with 30% redacted operational details (credentials, specific vulnerabilities, financial data, supplier contracts). Balance demonstrates comprehensive ISMS while protecting genuinely sensitive operational information.
TRANSPARENCY ILLUMINATION: 70/30 ratio isn't arbitrary—it's maximum transparency while protecting competitive/operational secrets. Could go 80/20 or 60/40, but 70/30 hits sweet spot of "comprehensive ISMS demonstration" without "creating attack roadmap."
Our Approach: GitHub-Native Public ISMS Repository
At Hack23, ISMS transparency is systematic implementation through GitHub version control:
📚 Primary Documentation Repository:
- GitHub Public: Hack23/ISMS-PUBLIC — Complete public ISMS documentation with 40+ markdown policies.
- Version Control: Git commit history shows policy evolution, change rationale, continuous improvement over time.
- Community Engagement: GitHub Issues for policy feedback, Pull Requests for improvement suggestions, Discussions for Q&A.
- Documentation Standards: Style Guide ensures consistency, readability, professional quality.
- License: Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) enables others to learn from and adapt our approach.
🔗 Corporate Website Integration:
- Discordian ISMS Blog: 40+ blog posts (like this one) explain policies in accessible, provocative style.
- Direct Policy Links: Every blog post links to corresponding GitHub policy for technical details.
- Live Evidence Badges: OpenSSF Scorecard, SonarCloud quality gates, SLSA attestations—clickable verification.
- SEO Optimization: Each policy has dedicated page for discoverability via search engines.
🛡️ Redaction Process for Mixed Documents:
- Step 1: Create complete internal version (source of truth, stored securely internally).
- Step 2: Create public copy for sanitization.
- Step 3: Apply redactions—replace sensitive data with [REDACTED], [Generic Example], [Representative Values].
- Step 4: CEO review ensures no sensitive information remains.
- Step 5: Publish to GitHub with commit message explaining redaction reasoning.
📊 Transparency Metrics and Client Impact:
- Documents Published: 40+ policies with ongoing updates as ISMS evolves.
- Public/Confidential Ratio: 70% public framework, 30% redacted operational details.
- Client Engagement: Security questionnaires answered with policy links, due diligence accelerated by public documentation.
- Community Contribution: GitHub Issues, improvement suggestions, industry peer review.
- Competitive Differentiation: "Verify our security yourself" vs. competitors' "trust us" approach.
🔄 Continuous Transparency Maintenance:
- Policy Updates: All changes committed to Git with clear commit messages explaining rationale.
- Redaction Reviews: Annual review of redacted content—can any be safely published now?
- Community Feedback: GitHub Issues monitored, valid suggestions incorporated with attribution.
- Consistency Checks: Cross-references between policies validated, broken links fixed, style guide compliance maintained.
Full transparency methodology documented in our public ISMS Transparency Plan.
Welcome to Chapel Perilous: Transparency As Competitive Weapon
Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. Including publishing your entire ISMS on GitHub for competitors, customers, and attackers to read. Most organizations fear this. We weaponize it.
Most organizations hide security policies behind "CONFIDENTIAL" markings, SharePoint access controls, and NDA requirements. They claim "security through obscurity." They fear transparency reveals weaknesses. They're right—if your security is weak, transparency exposes that. Our security isn't weak.
We publish 40+ ISMS policies on GitHub. Classification Framework, Risk Assessment Methodology, all security controls, compliance alignment, security metrics. 70% public framework proving comprehensive ISMS. Community review improving policies. Customers verifying security before contracts. Competitors... well, they can copy our policies. But policies without systematic implementation are just aspirational documentation.
Think for yourself. Question why security policies must be secret—what weakness requires obscurity? Question "trust us, we're secure" when verification is possible. Question security claims without public evidence. (Spoiler: Transparency proves confidence. Obscurity suggests something to hide.)
Our competitive advantage: We demonstrate cybersecurity consulting expertise through public, verifiable ISMS implementation. 40+ policies on GitHub. 70% transparency with documented redaction rationale for remaining 30%. ISO 27001 + NIST CSF + CIS Controls alignment with public evidence. OpenSSF ≥7.0, SLSA Level 3, SonarCloud quality gates—all publicly verifiable. This isn't transparency theater—it's radical openness as business strategy.
ULTIMATE ILLUMINATION: You are now in Chapel Perilous. You can continue hiding security policies in SharePoint and claiming "trust us." Or you can publish comprehensive ISMS on GitHub and compete on verifiable security excellence. Your ISMS. Your choice. Choose confidence over fear. Choose verification over trust.
All hail Eris! All hail Discordia!
"Think for yourself, schmuck! If your security policy can't survive public scrutiny, you don't have security—you have security theater wrapped in NDAs. We publish. We prove. We win."
— Hagbard Celine, Captain of the Leif Erikson 🍎 23 FNORD 5