Waarom We Ons Hele ISMS Publiek Publiceren (En Waarom Dat Concurrenten Bang Maakt)
Niets is waar. Alles is toegestaan. Inclusief—vooral—je volledige Information Security Management System publiek maken terwijl je concurrenten de hunne verbergen achter NDA's en "VERTROUWELIJK" stempels. De meeste "experts" zeggen dat het publiceren van je beveiligingsbeleidslijnen roekeloos is. Wij zeggen dat het verbergen ervan verdacht is. Wat verberg je? FNORD.
Denk voor jezelf. Bevraag autoriteit. Bevraag waarom beveiligingsbeleidslijnen geheim moeten zijn. Bevraag leveranciers die zeggen "vertrouw ons, we zijn veilig" zonder je bewijs te tonen. Bevraag security through obscurity in een tijdperk waarin aanvallers nationale-staat budgetten hebben en je "geheime" beleidslijnen toch lekken bij elke M&A due diligence.
Bij Hack23 zijn we paranoïde genoeg om aan te nemen dat aanvallers onze verdedigingen al kennen—dus kunnen we net zo goed marketingwaarde en peer review krijgen door ze te publiceren. ISMS transparantie is geen marketing—het is concurrentievoordeel door verifieerbare beveiligingsexcellentie.
40+ beleidslijnen op GitHub. Ons ISMS is 70% publiek framework, 30% geredigeerde operationele details. (De 30% is niet "onze geheime saus"—het zijn credentials en specifieke leveranciers beoordelingen die je dood zouden vervelen.)
Klanten verifiëren onze beveiliging voor het tekenen van contracten door het lezen van onze werkelijke beleidslijnen, niet leverancier vragenlijsten gevuld met leugens. Beveiligingsonderzoekers reviewen onze controles en suggereren verbeteringen omdat we paranoïde genoeg zijn om wereldwijde peer review te willen. Potentiële klanten beoordelen onze expertise door werkelijke implementatie, niet PowerPoint beloftes. We bewapenen transparantie.
VERLICHTING: Welkom in Chapel Perilous, waar je realiseert dat als je beveiliging afhangt van aanvallers die je verdedigingen niet kennen, je geen beveiliging hebt—je hebt wishful thinking verpakt in NDA's. Echte beveiliging overleeft transparantie. Zwakke beveiliging vereist obscuriteit. Welke heb jij? Ben je paranoïde genoeg om de wereld je beveiligingsclaims te laten verifiëren, of moet je ze verbergen?
Onze aanpak: standaard publiek tenzij specifiek gedocumenteerd risico vertrouwelijkheid vereist (en "gêne" is geen beveiligingsrisico). Demonstreer beveiligingsvolwassenheid door bewijs, niet marketingbeloftes. Accepteer kwetsbaarheidsontdekking door community review boven vals vertrouwen door obscuriteit. Volledige transparantiestrategie in ons publiek ISMS Transparantie Plan. Ja, ons transparantieplan is ook transparant. We zijn paranoïde genoeg om meta-review te willen. FNORD.
Op zoek naar expert implementatie ondersteuning? Zie waarom organisaties Hack23 kiezen voor security consulting die innovatie versnelt.
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.
Welkom bij 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, schmuck! 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