Solutions › SIRI Resilience
SIRI Resilience — confidence is not the same as tested readiness.
Most organisations feel prepared for a serious incident. Far fewer actually are. SIRI Resilience builds and tests cyber risk assessment, ransomware readiness, business continuity and recovery planning before the incident — not assembled under pressure after one.
90%Of security leaders are confident in their cyber recovery capability
28%Of ransomware victims actually recover their data in full
44%Of confirmed breaches in 2026 involved ransomware
Why confidence and readiness keep diverging
Live tracking · scroll to see the gap between plan and practice
The confidence gap
90% / 28%
90% of security leaders express confidence in their cyber recovery capability — but only 28% of ransomware victims actually recover their data in full (2026 survey of 900 security leaders).
Rising incidence
44%
44% of confirmed data breaches in 2026 involved ransomware, a 12% year-on-year increase, making resilience against this specific scenario a board-level priority.
Named framework
NIST CSF
NIST CSF 2.0 explicitly separates Recover from Respond as its own function — recognising that recovering well is a distinct capability from stopping an incident, and needs to be built and tested separately.
Continuity standard
ISO 22301
ISO 22301 sets the international standard for business continuity management systems, increasingly requested in enterprise procurement and vendor due diligence.
Board accountability
GOVERNANCE
Cyber resilience has moved from an IT budget line to a board-level governance topic, with directors expected to hold a defensible, current position on the organisation's actual readiness.
A plan that's never been tested is a hypothesis, not a capability
Backups exist in 90% of organisations that feel ready. Only 28% of ransomware victims actually recover fully.
Resilience is often confused with the existence of a plan: a documented incident-response procedure, a backup schedule, a business-continuity document filed away after an audit. Confidence built on an untested plan is not the same as a plan that has actually been proven to work under realistic pressure — and the gap between the two shows up exactly when it matters most.
A recent survey of 900 security leaders found 90% confident in their organisation's cyber recovery capability, while only 28% of actual ransomware victims recovered their data in full. That gap isn't a communication problem — it's the predictable result of plans that were written, filed, and never stress-tested against a realistic scenario. Resilience, treated properly, is prevent, detect, respond, recover and adapt run as a continuous cycle, not a document produced once for an audit.
90% confident in recovery. Only 28% actually recover their data in full.
The gap between perceived and tested readiness is the single clearest argument for resilience testing over resilience documentation. (2026 survey of 900 security leaders.)
SIRI Resilience builds cyber risk assessment, ransomware readiness, business continuity and recovery planning against ISO 22301 and NIST CSF, then tests it through tabletop exercises and simulation — so the plan a board is relying on has actually been pressure-tested, not just written down.
What organisations get wrong
Four assumptions that mistake a plan for readiness
Most resilience gaps aren't visible until an actual incident finds them.
01 — DOCUMENTATION
“We have a plan, so we're resilient”
An untested plan is a hypothesis about how an incident will unfold — most fail in ways that only become visible under real conditions or a realistic simulation.
02 — BACKUPS
“We have backups, so we can recover”
Only 28% of ransomware victims recover their data in full despite 90% of leaders expressing confidence — backups existing is not the same as recovery working end to end.
03 — OWNERSHIP
“Resilience is an IT problem”
Business continuity spans operations, communications, legal and leadership decision-making — treating it as a purely technical exercise leaves most of the organisation untested.
04 — FRAMEWORK COUNT
“One framework is enough”
As regulatory and customer requirements stack — ISO 27001, SOC 2, NIST CSF, sector-specific rules — a resilience programme mapped to only one framework leaves gaps against the others.
What SIRI Resilience covers
Built and tested before the incident, not assembled after
Prevent, detect, respond, recover, adapt — as one continuous cycle, mapped to ISO 22301 and NIST CSF.
RISK ASSESSMENT
Cyber Risk Assessment
Enterprise-wide assessment of cyber risk exposure, prioritised for the board and for remediation planning.
- Enterprise risk scoring
- Board-ready risk register
- Regulatory-mapping overlay
ARCHITECTURE
Security Architecture
Design and review of security architecture across systems, so resilience is built in, not bolted on.
- Architecture review
- Resilience-by-design guidance
- Multi-framework alignment
READINESS
Ransomware Readiness
Assessing and improving organisational readiness for a ransomware event specifically, given how common it now is.
- Readiness gap assessment
- Recovery-time validation
- Playbook development
CONTINUITY
Business Continuity Planning
Continuity planning so critical operations survive an incident, across the whole organisation, not just IT.
- Critical-function mapping
- ISO 22301-aligned planning
- Cross-functional ownership
RECOVERY
Recovery Planning
Documented, tested disaster-recovery planning with validated, not assumed, recovery times.
- Disaster-recovery planning
- Recovery-time objective testing
- Dependency mapping
TESTING
Resilience Testing
Tabletop exercises and simulations that test resilience under realistic pressure, not on paper.
- Tabletop exercises
- Crisis-simulation testing
- Post-exercise gap remediation
Evidence, not guesswork
No resilience programme vs. documented-but-untested plan vs. SIRI Resilience — what actually differs
A plan that exists and a plan that's been proven to work under pressure are different things.
| Approach | No resilience programme | Documented but untested plan | SIRI Resilience |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plan exists | No | Yes | Yes |
| Plan is tested (tabletop / simulation) | No | Rarely | Standard |
| Recovery time actually validated | No | No | Yes |
| Multi-framework mapping (ISO 22301 / NIST CSF / ISO 27001) | No | Rare | Included |
| Board-level reporting | No | Ad hoc | Standard |
Sources: 2026 survey of 900 security leaders on cyber recovery confidence; ISO 22301:2019; NIST CSF 2.0. Summarised for comparison; confirm current framework requirements applicable to your organisation.
Numbers every board should know
What separates confidence from tested readiness
90%
Confident in recovery
Of security leaders express confidence in their organisation's cyber recovery capability.
28%
Actually recover in full
Of ransomware victims actually recover their data completely, despite that confidence.
44%
Breaches involve ransomware
Of confirmed data breaches in 2026, up 12% year over year.
5
Functions in one cycle
Prevent, detect, respond, recover, adapt — run continuously, not as a one-time exercise.
Compliance alignment
Standards & frameworks we align to
Our methodology is built around publicly recognised frameworks — not a proprietary checklist. Where a specific certification or attestation is completed and verified, it will be named here explicitly.
ISO/IEC 27001:2022
SOC 2 (AICPA TSC)
NIST CSF 2.0
MITRE ATT&CK
OWASP Top 10
OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications
NIST AI RMF
ISO/IEC 42001
ISO 22301
CERT-In Directions 2022
Framework references reflect publicly available versions as of publication and describe the standards our methodology is aligned to; they are not a claim of certification, attestation, or audit completion unless stated explicitly elsewhere on this site.
Why SIRI for cyber resilience specifically
Engineered before the incident, tested against reality — not assembled after one
A resilience programme is only as good as the pressure it's actually been tested under.
01
Prevent, detect, respond, recover, adapt
Resilience is engineered as a continuous cycle across all five functions, not a document produced once and filed away.
02
Board confidence, defensibly
Directors receive a current, defensible position on cyber risk, expressed in decision terms rather than technical findings alone.
03
Multi-framework by default
Programmes map to ISO 22301 and NIST CSF together, so a single resilience effort satisfies multiple regulatory and customer requirements at once.
04
Closes the loop from real incidents
Findings from SIRI Response engagements feed directly into resilience hardening, so the same gap doesn't reopen the same way twice.
Who this is built for
Organisations SIRI Resilience is built for
Financial Services
Healthcare
Critical Infrastructure & Energy
Technology & SaaS
Manufacturing
Government
How we work
From current-state assessment to continuous improvement
01
Assess Current Resilience
Baseline assessment of existing plans, controls and recovery capability.
Weeks 1–202
Design & Document
Business continuity, recovery and governance documentation built to ISO 22301 / NIST CSF.
Weeks 3–503
Test
Tabletop exercises and simulation to pressure-test the plan against realistic scenarios.
Week 604
Continuously Improve
Regular re-testing and governance reporting as the organisation and threat landscape change.
OngoingFrequently asked
SIRI Resilience, answered directly
What's the difference between resilience and incident response?
Incident response (SIRI Response) is what happens during and immediately after an active incident. Resilience is what's built beforehand so that response goes faster and recovery is actually validated to work — and what's rebuilt afterward so the same gap doesn't reopen.
How often should a resilience plan actually be tested?
At minimum annually, and after any material change to infrastructure, personnel or the threat landscape — a plan tested once at launch and never revisited tends to be the one that fails when it's actually needed.
Does this replace cyber insurance?
No. A tested resilience programme complements cyber insurance — insurers increasingly expect evidence of tested continuity and recovery planning as part of underwriting, and a validated plan tends to support smoother claims when an incident does occur.
How long does a resilience programme take to build?
An initial assessment, documentation and first tabletop test typically run 6–8 weeks; resilience is then maintained as an ongoing programme with regular re-testing rather than a one-time project.
How does this map to ISO 22301 and NIST CSF?
Business continuity and recovery planning are built against ISO 22301's business continuity management system structure, while the broader programme is mapped to NIST CSF 2.0's Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond and Recover functions.
Close the gap between confidence and readiness
Build resilience you can actually prove.
Start with an assessment, or move straight to testing if your plans already exist on paper.
24/7 for active incidents: +91 79819 12046
Related