Certified: The GIAC GSLC Audio Course

In this episode, we focus on why security policies so often fail in practice, and how to write them so people can actually follow them and auditors can actually verify them. A policy is not a motivational poster and it is not a collection of security ideals written in formal language. A policy is a management tool that creates clear obligations, clear ownership, and clear evidence of compliance. If people cannot understand what is required, they will fill the gap with their own assumptions, and those assumptions will be inconsistent. If auditors cannot test the requirements, the policy becomes a liability because it states expectations the organization cannot prove. The sweet spot is a policy that is clear enough for a busy professional to apply during daily work and specific enough for a reviewer to verify without interpretation battles. Achieving that balance takes discipline, because it requires you to write with operational reality in mind rather than writing for appearances. When policies are well written, they reduce risk by shaping behavior and by supporting consistent controls across teams. When policies are poorly written, they become documents people avoid and exceptions people negotiate around.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

A security policy’s purpose is to set direction and required outcomes, which means it tells the organization what must be true, not merely what would be nice. Direction is the why and the intent, such as protecting sensitive data, ensuring reliable access control, or preserving the integrity of systems that support customer commitments. Required outcomes are the non-negotiable conditions the organization expects, such as that sensitive data is encrypted, access is controlled, and changes are reviewed. A good policy also clarifies scope, meaning which systems, teams, data types, and environments are covered, because vague scope creates gaps that become easy to exploit. Policies should be stable enough to survive tool changes and organizational shifts, because a policy that is tied to a specific product name becomes obsolete quickly. At the same time, policies must be specific enough that a reader can understand what is expected without needing a private meeting with the security team. Purpose statements help with buy-in because people want to know why they are being asked to do something. Required outcomes help with enforcement because they define what must be measured and verified. When purpose and outcomes are both present, the policy becomes both meaningful and operational.

Plain language is critical because most policy readers are not security specialists, and even specialists do not have time to decode dense, legalistic phrasing during real work. Plain language does not mean simplistic language; it means clear sentences, direct verbs, and concrete obligations that can be understood on a first read. It also means avoiding vague words that invite interpretation, such as appropriate, reasonable, and as needed, unless those words are immediately tied to a measurable standard. Plain language improves compliance because it reduces accidental misunderstanding, and accidental misunderstanding is one of the most common causes of policy drift. It also improves enforcement because managers and auditors can interpret the policy consistently. When a policy is written clearly, it becomes easier to incorporate into training, onboarding, and workflow documentation because the language is already accessible. Clear writing also reduces conflict because teams can discuss requirements without arguing about what the words mean. In a mature environment, policy language is treated as an engineering artifact, not as ceremonial text. The goal is that a person can read a policy requirement and know exactly what they must do or ensure. Clarity is a control.

Measurable and testable requirements are what make a policy auditable, and they are also what make it enforceable operationally. A measurable requirement states what must happen, under what conditions, and how compliance can be checked. For example, instead of saying systems must be secured, a measurable requirement might specify that administrative access requires strong authentication and that access events must be logged. The exact implementation can vary, but the measurable condition stays stable. Testability means you can show evidence, such as configuration settings, access logs, or review records, that demonstrate the requirement is met. Testability also means the requirement avoids hidden exceptions, because hidden exceptions create ambiguity and invite bypassing. Writing testable requirements requires you to imagine how a control would be verified, because verification is where vague language collapses. If you cannot imagine the evidence, the requirement is probably too vague. Good requirements also avoid stacking multiple obligations in one sentence, because that makes testing harder and encourages partial compliance. When each requirement is clean, it can be mapped to controls, evidence, and owners. This is how policy becomes a tool rather than a burden.

One of the most common pitfalls is writing policies that describe ideals without actionable requirements, because ideals feel safe and agreeable but they do not change behavior. Ideals often sound like the organization will protect data, maintain security, and follow best practices, but those statements do not tell anyone what to do on Tuesday afternoon when a decision must be made. Ideals also create audit risk because auditors can ask how the organization proves those claims, and the organization may not have evidence because the policy never defined what evidence should exist. Another issue with ideal-based policies is that they encourage performative compliance, where teams focus on writing nice language rather than building controls that actually work. The result is a policy corpus that is large but not useful, and a culture where policies are treated as paperwork. The antidote is to write fewer statements and make each statement more concrete. A policy can still include intent, but intent must be paired with requirements that describe observable outcomes. Policies should be written to drive decisions, not to impress. When policies are actionable, they become a reference people use rather than a document they ignore.

A quick win that dramatically improves policy usability is adding roles, responsibilities, and enforcement consequences so obligations do not float without accountability. Roles clarify who is responsible for implementing controls, who is responsible for approving exceptions, and who is responsible for monitoring compliance. Responsibilities should be written in operational terms, such as owners must review access regularly, managers must ensure staff follow approved processes, or system custodians must ensure logging is enabled. Enforcement consequences do not need to be punitive language, but they must be real, meaning the policy should state what happens when requirements are not met, such as escalation, remediation timelines, or restrictions on system use until compliance is restored. Consequences are important because policies without consequences are suggestions, and suggestions are rarely followed consistently under pressure. Ownership also makes audits easier because auditors can interview the right people and obtain the right evidence. It makes operations easier because decisions do not bounce between teams. When ownership is clear, exception requests become manageable because there is a defined decision path. Clear roles also reduce conflict because they prevent overlapping authority and contradictory instructions. A policy that names owners is a policy that can be operated.

A scenario rehearsal that proves policy strength is an exception request arriving and the policy guiding the decision rather than forcing a debate from scratch. When an exception request arrives, a strong policy should make it clear what requirement is being deviated from, what conditions must be met for an exception to be considered, and who has authority to approve. The policy should also guide what evidence must be provided, such as a risk rationale, compensating controls, and a time limit. Without that guidance, exception handling becomes personality-driven, inconsistent, and slow, which encourages bypassing. A mature policy does not pretend exceptions never happen; it defines how exceptions are managed so the organization can move while remaining accountable. The scenario also highlights the value of measurable requirements, because you cannot grant an exception from a vague requirement without creating confusion about what is actually being waived. When policies define exceptions clearly, teams can plan better because they know what will be required. This reduces friction during urgent periods because the decision model is already established. The result is fewer informal exceptions and more controlled risk acceptance. Policy becomes a living tool rather than a static statement.

Policies must align with real workflows to avoid constant bypassing, because workflow misalignment is the main reason policies fail in practice. If a policy requires a secure process but the secure process is slower, harder, or unavailable, people will choose the path that lets them complete their work. This is not stubbornness; it is the normal result of incentives and constraints. Alignment means you write requirements with awareness of how teams actually perform the work and you ensure there is an approved, practical path for compliance. For example, if a policy restricts data sharing, there must be an approved sharing method that meets business needs, or else teams will invent their own. If a policy requires approvals for risky changes, the approval process must be responsive enough to fit operational reality, or else changes will be made informally. Alignment also means the policy does not demand controls the organization cannot implement, because that guarantees noncompliance. When a policy is aligned with workflows, compliance becomes the default rather than the exception. This reduces security risk and reduces governance overhead because fewer exceptions are needed. Policies that fit real work are more respected because they feel like guidance, not obstacles.

Review cycles keep policies current and trusted, because stale policies become ignored policies. Environments change, services evolve, regulations shift, and organizational structures change, and policy language must keep pace. A review cycle defines how often a policy is reviewed, who reviews it, and what triggers an out-of-cycle update, such as major incidents, new regulatory requirements, or major technology changes. Review cycles also help prevent policy sprawl, because they create a chance to retire or consolidate documents that are redundant or conflicting. Trust matters because staff will ignore policies they believe are outdated or inconsistent with actual practice. Auditors also notice when policies have not been reviewed in years, because it suggests weak governance. A simple review cycle can be enough if it is consistent, and consistency is more important than complexity. The review should include validating whether the policy matches current controls and whether the evidence pathways still exist. If the policy requires something that is not implemented, either the control must be built or the policy must be updated, because misalignment creates risk. When policies are reviewed regularly, they remain relevant, and relevance is what sustains compliance.

Policies should be tied to standards and procedures without duplication, because duplication creates drift and confusion. A policy should state required outcomes and governance expectations, while standards and procedures should provide the detailed how. If the policy tries to contain all operational detail, it becomes long, brittle, and frequently outdated. If procedures try to replace policy intent, they may become inconsistent across teams. The connection should be explicit, meaning the policy should reference the existence of supporting standards and procedures and describe how they relate. For example, a policy might require encryption for sensitive data, while a standard defines acceptable encryption configurations and a procedure defines how teams enable and verify it in specific environments. This separation also improves auditability because auditors can see the hierarchy: policy sets the requirement, standards define the measurable criteria, and procedures show repeatable implementation. Keeping documents in their lanes reduces the chance that small operational changes require rewriting high-level policy language. It also makes the policy easier to read because it stays focused on what must be true. When duplication is minimized, the policy corpus becomes coherent rather than contradictory. Coherence is a form of control because it reduces interpretation errors.

A useful memory anchor is clear requirements plus ownership equals usable policy, because without clear requirements you cannot test compliance and without ownership you cannot operate the policy. Clear requirements describe what must be true in a way that can be verified through evidence. Ownership describes who ensures those requirements are implemented and maintained, and who decides when exceptions are acceptable. This anchor also helps diagnose why a policy is failing. If people say they do not know what to do, the requirements are unclear. If people know what to do but it does not happen, ownership or enforcement is unclear. If exceptions are frequent, the policy may be misaligned with workflows or the requirements may be unrealistic. The anchor keeps you focused on usability rather than on document length. It also keeps policy writing honest because it forces you to ask whether each statement can be acted on and whether someone is responsible for it. When policies meet the anchor, they tend to be respected and followed because they are practical. When they fail the anchor, they become shelfware.

Validating policy through spot checks and control evidence is how you confirm the policy is not just words. Spot checks can examine whether key requirements are implemented in representative systems, whether access controls align with role expectations, and whether logging and monitoring exist where required. Control evidence can include configuration outputs, access review records, change approval tickets, and incident response artifacts that demonstrate the policy is operating. Validation should be regular enough to detect drift, not only during audits, because drift is common in evolving environments. Validation also provides feedback for policy improvement because it reveals which requirements are hard to implement or interpret. If teams consistently struggle with a requirement, it may need clearer language or better supporting procedures. Validation should also consider exceptions, ensuring exceptions are documented, time-bound, and reviewed, because unmanaged exceptions erode policy credibility. When validation is part of normal operations, audits become easier because evidence is already current. It also improves security because gaps are detected and fixed sooner. A policy that is validated becomes trustworthy, and trust is what drives adherence.

Strong policy language has a few consistent traits, and naming them helps you write better and review existing policies more critically. Strong language uses direct verbs that indicate obligation, such as must and shall, while avoiding ambiguous suggestions like should unless the intent is truly optional. Strong language defines scope and conditions clearly, so readers know where the requirement applies and when exceptions may exist. Strong language is measurable, meaning it can be tested through evidence rather than interpretation, and it avoids vague terms that hide uncertainty. Strong language also separates requirements cleanly, avoiding long sentences with multiple independent obligations that are hard to implement and hard to audit. It uses consistent terms and definitions so the same concept is not described three different ways across documents. It also respects the reader’s time by being concise and focused on outcomes. When policy language has these traits, it becomes easier to enforce and easier to defend. When policy language lacks them, it becomes an argument waiting to happen. Clarity and testability are the hallmarks of strong policy writing.

To conclude, take one policy sentence and rewrite it to be measurable, because this simple exercise reveals whether the policy is enforceable or merely aspirational. Start with a sentence that sounds like an ideal, such as systems must be secure or data must be protected, and then ask what measurable condition would prove that statement is true. Rewrite the sentence so it specifies the control outcome, the scope, and the evidence expectation, such as requiring encryption for certain data types, requiring logging of specific access actions, or requiring periodic access reviews with documented results. Ensure the sentence names who is responsible for meeting the requirement or at least points to the responsible role in the policy’s responsibility section. Consider what exceptions might be needed and whether the policy should define an exception process rather than letting exceptions occur informally. Once rewritten, imagine how an auditor would test it, because that testability is your quality check. If you can identify the evidence source, the sentence is likely measurable enough. This is how policy writing becomes a craft rather than a formality, and it is how policies become documents people can follow and auditors can verify.