RSI Security

Name: RSI Security
Address: 1900 W. Kirkwood Boulevard , Suite 2500A, Southlake, TX, 76092, US
Telephone: +18589993030

Call Directions Website Contact the business

Organizations today face growing cyber threats, compliance requirements, and constant pressure from regulators and leadership teams.

The result is uncertainty that becomes difficult to scale. RSI Security helps simplify the path forward.

11/01/2026

When an organization needs SOC 2, ISO 27001, and HIPAA, the instinct is to start with whichever audit is due first.

That usually means building controls that have to be reworked for the second framework, then again for the third.

Our Compliance Fragmentation Report looked at what that costs. The fix is to map all frameworks to one control set before you assess. It takes longer at the start and saves time on every audit after.

The report covers how the mapping works, where frameworks overlap most, and a case study of an organization that made the shift.

Download the report: https://hubs.la/Q04CPlj20

11/01/2026

Ask RSI Security: What should a compliance program be doing in the months between audits?

If the honest answer at your organization is "not much," that's usually where next year's findings start. An access review slips. A new vendor gets onboarded without a review. A policy passes its review date.

None of it surfaces until fieldwork.

What should be running between audits:
✔️ On a set schedule (often quarterly): vulnerability scans and access reviews for critical systems
✔️ When something changes: vendor reviews, scope updates, risk assessment updates
✔️ At least annually: policy reviews, security awareness training, incident response testing
✔️ All year: evidence collected as the work happens, mapped to controls

The teams with the shortest audit seasons do a small amount of this every month. By the time the auditor arrives, the evidence already exists.

Have a compliance question you want answered? Leave it in the comments or send it to [email protected], and we may answer it in a future Ask RSI Security post.

10/31/2026

Myth: Audit fatigue comes from having too many frameworks.

Fact: It usually comes from collecting the same evidence separately for each one. An access review can satisfy SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, and HIPAA if it's documented once against a shared control.

The number of frameworks matters less than whether they share a control set.

10/30/2026

Since March 31, 2025, PCI DSS 4.0.1 requires MFA for all access into the cardholder data environment (8.4.2), with limited exceptions. Remote access from outside your network has required it longer (8.4.3).

The systems themselves have rules too: MFA can't be bypassable, and it has to resist replay attacks (8.5.1).

Our checklist covers each requirement and what an assessor will ask to see: https://hubs.la/Q04CP6Pt0

10/30/2026

A contractor selling to DoD and civilian agencies can face CMMC, FedRAMP, NIST SP 800-171, and agency-specific requirements at the same time.

They overlap heavily. NIST SP 800-171 is derived from NIST SP 800-53, which FedRAMP is built on. Running them as separate projects means collecting the same evidence several times.

Map them to one control set first. Then assess.

10/29/2026

Three things to know about security team burnout:

1. When the same people own audit prep, incident response, and daily operations, audit season pulls them off the work that keeps you secure.
2. Tired teams make documentation mistakes, and documentation is what assessors examine.
3. Turnover takes undocumented knowledge with it. The next audit starts from scratch.

Spreading compliance work across the year, instead of compressing it into the month before an audit, is one of the most effective fixes.

10/29/2026

PCI DSS 4.0.1 scanning requirements, summarized:

✔️ Internal scans at least once every three months (11.3.1)
✔️ Authenticated internal scanning, required since March 31, 2025 (11.3.1.2)
✔️ External scans at least once every three months by a PCI Approved Scanning Vendor (11.3.2)
✔️ Rescans after any significant change, internal and external
✔️ Rescans until high-risk and critical findings are resolved

RSI Security is a PCI ASV, let us help your organization stay on track with requirements!

10/15/2026

Ad hoc security works until it doesn’t. The problem is that organizations rarely notice the transition point until they’re already past it — usually when an enterprise deal stalls at the security review stage, an audit surfaces gaps that nobody knew existed, or a compliance deadline arrives and the team realizes the program hasn’t been actively maintained since the last one.

🔍 Three specific signals that the ad hoc approach has run its course:

1) Nobody can answer the current state question without investigating. “Where does our security program stand right now?” should have an answer that doesn’t require scheduling a discovery sprint. When the honest response is “let me pull together some information and get back to you,” the program is being reconstructed on demand rather than maintained continuously. That’s the clearest signal that what was working at 20 employees isn’t working anymore.

2) Compliance obligations are being managed reactively. When a new framework requirement arrives and the response is to mobilize a project team from scratch — rather than mapping the new requirement against existing controls — the compliance program doesn’t have a foundation. It has a history of separate events. Organizations that have outgrown ad hoc feel every new requirement as a crisis. Organizations with a structured program feel it as an addendum.

3) The security program isn’t visible to leadership. When board or executive questions about security posture, breach exposure, or regulatory risk require days to answer — or produce inconsistent responses depending on who’s asked — the program doesn’t have defined ownership or structured reporting. That visibility gap isn’t just a communication problem. It’s a governance problem that compounds every time a leadership decision gets made without accurate security context.

🔍 The transition from ad hoc to structured isn’t about size. It’s about whether the current approach can carry the next 12 months of compliance obligations, enterprise growth, and leadership scrutiny without breaking. If the honest answer is no — that’s the signal.

👉 Learn more about building a structured security program with RSI Security.

10/14/2026

Choosing the right C3PAO is one of the most consequential decisions a defense contractor makes — pause or no pause.

Phase II contractual requirements are suspended pending the Reform Task Force review. But per the Cyber AB’s most recent Town Hall, C3PAOs are actively conducting Level 2 assessments right now. DFARS 252.204-7012 remains in force. The organizations using this window to prepare are the ones that won’t be scrambling when enforcement timelines clarify.

When the time comes to select a C3PAO, three things worth evaluating:

1) Active Cyber AB authorization. Verify the C3PAO is listed and current on the Cyber AB Marketplace before any conversation goes further. Authorization status changes — confirm it before committing.

2) Assessment methodology. Ask what the first 30 days look like. Ask how boundary disputes are handled. Ask what happens when the SSP and technical reality don’t match. Specific answers signal real experience. Vague answers don’t.

3) Independence from advisory services. A C3PAO that provided readiness advisory for the same engagement creates independence issues the Cyber AB takes seriously. Confirm the assessment team is independent from any prior advisory relationship before signing.

If your organization has worked with RSI Security — as a C3PAO or in any advisory capacity — a review on G2 or Clutch helps other organizations make a more informed decision.

10/11/2026

Quick tip: building an AI acceptable-use policy that actually holds up.

Most AI acceptable-use policies read like a list of things employees can’t do. That’s the wrong starting point — and it’s why most of them don’t hold up when a real governance question surfaces.
A defensible AI acceptable-use policy starts with three things before it says anything about restrictions:

1) A defined scope. Which AI tools are covered? Personal AI tools used on work devices? Employer-provided AI platforms? Third-party AI integrations embedded in existing software? A policy that doesn’t define its own scope can’t be enforced — and can’t be cited when a compliance auditor or enterprise buyer asks for documentation.

2) A data classification boundary. What data can employees put into an AI system — and what can’t they? Customer PII, PHI, CUI, contractual data, attorney-client privileged material — each category carries its own handling obligation. The policy needs to map data classification to AI tool permissions explicitly, not leave it to employee judgment.

3) Accountability by role. Who approves new AI tools before adoption? Who reviews AI outputs before they go to clients or regulators? Who is notified when an AI tool is used in a way that wasn’t anticipated? Named roles with documented responsibilities turn a policy into a governance structure. Without them it’s a document nobody enforces.

🔍 Restrictions and prohibited uses belong in the policy — but they follow from scope, data classification, and accountability, not the other way around. A policy built in that order is enforceable. A list of prohibitions without structure isn’t.

👉 Download the AI Governance Readiness Guide — link in the comments.

Address

1900 W. Kirkwood Boulevard , Suite 2500A
Southlake, TX
76092

Telephone

+18589993030

Website

https://rsisecurity.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when RSI Security posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.