Bowtie risk analysis, CyberPHA/HAZOP, and IEC 62443 gap and maturity assessments — purpose-built for industrial control systems, SCADA, and safety-instrumented environments.
Industrial environments cannot be secured with IT-style audits alone. OT assessments need methodologies that respect process safety, availability, and the unique characteristics of control system networks.
Modern industrial operations run on a tightly coupled mix of distributed control systems, programmable logic controllers, safety instrumented systems, historians, engineering workstations, and remote access pathways. The same technologies that enabled decades of efficiency gains have also expanded the attack surface — and unlike enterprise IT, a successful compromise of control logic, a misconfigured firewall rule, or an unpatched engineering workstation can have direct physical consequences. Production losses, environmental release, equipment damage, and harm to personnel are all on the table.
Standard IT assessments are not built for this environment. Active vulnerability scanners can crash legacy PLCs. Credentialed scans require service accounts that should not exist on a controller. Patch-cycle assumptions break down when a vendor support contract forbids changes. A meaningful OT assessment has to start from a different premise: what could go wrong physically, what cyber pathway makes that scenario possible, and what controls actually stand between an adversary and that outcome.
Our assessments combine four complementary methodologies — OT bowtie assessment, cyber PHA methodology, ISA/IEC 62443 gap assessment and NIST 800-82 gap analysis, and passive OT monitoring assessment — chosen and scoped to match your operational priorities, regulatory drivers, and existing program maturity. Whether you need a defensible risk picture for an executive audience, a CyberPHA that satisfies process safety expectations, a structured roadmap to meet IEC 62443, or visibility into east-west traffic on a network you have never instrumented, we tailor the approach to deliver findings your team can act on.
Four proven methodologies for understanding and mitigating OT cybersecurity risk across industrial operations.
An OT bowtie assessment is a visual risk methodology that maps threats, preventive barriers, top events, and consequences specific to your OT and ICS environments. By modeling attack pathways from threat sources through to potential physical impacts, the bowtie shows where your existing controls are effective and where critical gaps exist — supporting targeted investment.
Our cyber PHA methodology combines the rigor of traditional HAZOP (Hazard and Operability) analysis with cyber threat assessment to identify risks at the intersection of process safety and cybersecurity. As an experienced CyberPHA consultant, we facilitate workshops that bring process engineers, safety professionals, and cybersecurity experts into one room — the only way to evaluate how a cyber compromise can defeat the independent layers of protection assumed by IEC 61511.
Our ISA/IEC 62443 gap assessment and NIST 800-82 gap analysis evaluate your current OT security posture against the standards your auditors, customers, and insurers actually ask about. Through detailed analysis of policies, procedures, network architecture, and technical controls, we identify gaps against IEC 62443, the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, NIST SP 800-82 Rev. 3, and where applicable NERC CIP — producing a clear maturity rating and a prioritized roadmap that aligns security investments with operational risk tolerance.
A passive OT monitoring assessment answers a question every plant cybersecurity program eventually asks: what is actually happening on this network? Using span/TAP-based passive capture, we observe real traffic — protocols, devices, communication patterns, anomalies — without sending a single packet onto the control system. The result is a ground-truth picture of asset inventory, segmentation effectiveness, and silent risks that diagrams alone cannot show.
A structured, repeatable methodology that delivers actionable results for your organization.
We work with your team to define the assessment scope, identify critical assets and systems, and establish the objectives, timeline, and methodology best suited to your environment.
Our experts conduct thorough on-site and remote evaluations, reviewing network architecture, interviewing key personnel, inspecting configurations, and examining existing security controls.
Collected data is analyzed against industry frameworks and best practices to identify vulnerabilities, quantify risk levels, and determine the potential impact of identified threats.
We deliver a comprehensive report with findings, risk ratings, and a prioritized roadmap of recommendations that provides a clear path toward a stronger OT security posture.
We tailor each engagement to the standards your buyers, regulators, and customers actually ask about.
The international standard for industrial automation and control system security. Organized around zones, conduits, and security levels (SL 1–4), with prescriptive control requirements across the asset owner, integrator, and product supplier. We assess against the parts most relevant to your role — typically 2-1 (program), 2-4 (integrator), 3-2 (risk), 3-3 (system controls), and 4-2 (component controls).
NIST's Guide to Operational Technology Security, refreshed in 2023. Risk-based, framework-agnostic, and widely referenced by US federal operators and critical infrastructure sectors. Useful when stakeholders need US-federal alignment alongside or instead of IEC 62443. We map findings to both 800-82 controls and the NIST Cybersecurity Framework functions.
Mandatory reliability standards for the bulk electric system in North America. Where in scope, we evaluate posture against the current CIP-002 through CIP-014 requirements, identify documentation and evidence gaps, and recommend remediation that holds up to audit. We do not perform regulated audits — we prepare you for them.
The functional safety standard for safety instrumented systems. Cyber events can defeat the independent layers of protection assumed by 61511. Our CyberPHA approach explicitly addresses how cyber compromise affects SIL claims and what compensating controls preserve safety integrity.
The pipeline-sector standard for SCADA and pipeline control system security. We assess against 1164 for midstream and downstream operators where pipeline cyber expectations are explicit, including supplier oversight and remote access requirements.
Where an enterprise ISO 27001 program already exists, we evaluate how the OT environment fits into the broader ISMS and identify scope gaps. ISO/IEC 27019 extends 27002 controls for the energy utility industry and is useful where IEC 62443 alone does not satisfy stakeholder expectations.
The four methodologies answer different questions. Most clients use them in sequence or in combination.
The questions we get most often when scoping an OT cybersecurity assessment.
Most engagements run four to twelve weeks depending on scope. A focused bowtie assessment of a single critical process can be completed in three to four weeks. A full IEC 62443 gap and maturity assessment across multiple sites typically takes eight to twelve weeks, including on-site interviews, document review, network analysis, and final reporting.
No. Our methodology is built around passive observation, document review, and structured interviews. We do not run active vulnerability scanners, credentialed scans, or intrusive tests against live control systems unless explicitly scoped and approved during a maintenance window. Availability and process safety remain the priority throughout the engagement.
A bowtie assessment maps threat scenarios, preventive barriers, and consequences for a specific top event — useful when you need a clear visual of where controls exist and where gaps are. A CyberPHA extends a traditional process hazard analysis to include cyber-initiated causes, evaluating how a cyber compromise could defeat safeguards and lead to safety, environmental, or production impacts. Many clients use them together: CyberPHA to identify the high-consequence scenarios, bowtie to detail the controls.
IEC 62443 is the dominant international standard for industrial automation and control systems, with prescriptive requirements organized by zones, conduits, and security levels. NIST SP 800-82 (Rev. 3) is risk-based and widely referenced by US federal and critical infrastructure operators. Most mature programs map controls to both. We can assess against either framework, or produce a unified gap analysis that satisfies both audiences.
Yes. Safety instrumented systems require careful treatment because cyber compromise can defeat the independent layer of protection assumed by IEC 61511. Our CyberPHA explicitly evaluates SIS exposure, network segmentation between BPCS and SIS, configuration management of safety logic, and the impact of cyber events on the SIL claim.
A passive OT monitoring assessment uses span ports or network TAPs to observe traffic that is already traversing the network — we send no packets to control devices. Active scanning, by contrast, generates probe traffic that can crash legacy PLCs, lock out HMIs, or corrupt protocol stacks. Passive is the only safe default in production OT, and it produces a ground-truth asset inventory and traffic baseline without operational risk.
Every engagement ends with a written report containing an executive summary, methodology, detailed findings with risk ratings, supporting evidence, and a prioritized roadmap of remediation actions. We also deliver out-briefs for technical teams and management, and we hold a follow-up working session to walk leadership through the recommendations and answer questions.
Findings from an assessment typically feed directly into one of these follow-on engagements.
Once gaps are identified, an architecture design review validates whether your network segmentation, defense-in-depth design, and program governance match the risk picture the assessment produced.
Most assessment findings have a workforce component. Custom and standards-based OT cybersecurity training closes the gap between control system staff, security teams, and process safety engineers.
For practical context on why standard IT-style audits miss the mark in industrial environments, see our blog post on why IT security tools often fail in OT.
Contact us to scope a bowtie, CyberPHA, or IEC 62443 gap and maturity assessment for your industrial environment.
Schedule a Consultation