Top risks against appetite
Score is impact times likelihood, out of 25. The black line marks the agreed appetite. The tag says what is asked of leadership.
Security postureBack to Security WatchSigning in…Security postureBack to Security WatchSigning in…—
Where Mondra sits against its agreed risk appetite, what security tooling costs, and the financial exposure still to be sized with Finance.
Score is impact times likelihood, out of 25. The black line marks the agreed appetite. The tag says what is asked of leadership.
Actual monthly cost of cloud workload protection and of security monitoring and log retention, from Azure Cost Management. Excludes office software licences and other security subscriptions, which belong in the budget lines below.
Annual loss ranges if each scenario happened, after current controls (dark bar) against before controls (pale bar). Ranges, not forecasts. Figures appear once agreed with Finance.
| Spend line | Budget | Spent | Risk it reduces | Change in exposure | Status |
|---|
Volumes handled each week. Weeks start on Sunday; the current week is incomplete and shown paler. Context for the outcome measures, not a measure of success on its own.
Each bar shows the measure against its target (solid tick) and amber threshold (dashed tick). Grey "No data" means the figure was not available; it is never treated as green. Select any measure for its definition, history and what is being done. A dot marks measures with an explanation.
Share of each framework's controls implemented and evidenced. The black line marks the target.
| Measure | Status | Now | Against target | Previous | Owner | Checked by |
|---|
| Area | Status | Detail |
|---|
Volumes of work and attacks handled. Useful context for the security team; not a measure of outcome.
| Measure | Value | Previous | Window | Source |
|---|