MECHANISM FOR ADAPTIVE PLANNING OF ENTERPRISE CYBERSECURITY AUDITS BASED ON COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF ASSET SECURITY STATE AND CRITICALITY

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.28925/2663-4023.2026.35.1422

Keywords:

cybersecurity, cybersecurity audit, information assets, asset criticality, cyber risk, prioritization, decision-making, adaptive planning

Abstract

The article proposes a mechanism for adaptive planning of enterprise cybersecurity audits based on a comprehensive assessment of the security state and criticality of information assets. The mechanism is considered as a decision-support tool for the audit planning stage and is intended to determine the priority of information asset checks within an established audit program. The comprehensive assessment combines formal compliance with cybersecurity requirements, the current dynamic security state, and expert assessment performed by an auditor or a relevant specialist. Asset business significance is additionally represented by a criticality coefficient. Based on these indicators, an integrated asset security-state score is formed and an audit priority index is calculated. The index is used to rank information assets and adaptively refine the order of their checks when audit resources are limited. The mechanism allows priorities to be recalculated when new vulnerabilities, anomalous events, incidents, configuration changes, or other cybersecurity risk factors occur. To ensure reproducibility, the sources and timing of input data, normalization rules, assessment scales, and weighting coefficients are documented. A scenario-based evaluation was performed using eight information assets of a hypothetical enterprise. After the deterioration of the security state of selected assets was modeled, the priority indices were recalculated, resulting in a change in the order of first-priority checks. With the available audit resource limited to three checks per cycle, the mean priority index of the assets selected for first-priority examination increased from 0.307 for the initial order to 0.344 for the adaptively updated order. The obtained results demonstrate the operability of the mechanism as a decision-support tool for prioritizing information asset checks and require further validation using real enterprise data.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Криворучко, О. В., & Гнатченко, Д. Д. (2024). Функціональні особливості інтелектуальної системи внутрішнього аудиту. Кібербезпека: освіта, наука, техніка, 4(24), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.28925/2663-4023.2024.24.4049

Куперштейн, Л. М., Волинець, В. В., & Войтович, О. П. (2026). Аналіз сучасних підходів та перспектив застосування штучного інтелекту в аудиті кібербезпеки підприємства. Наукові праці Вінницького національного технічного університету, (1). https://praci.vntu.edu.ua/index.php/praci/article/view/923

Palo Alto Networks, Unit 42. (2026). Global incident response report 2026. https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/content/dam/pan/en_US/assets/pdf/unit42/Unit42-Global-Incident-Response-Report.pdf

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (NIST CSWP 29). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.29.pdf

Войтович, О., & Волинець, В. (2025). Особливості законодавства щодо аудиту кібербезпеки в різних регіонах світу. Вимірювальна та обчислювальна техніка в технологічних процесах, (3), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.31891/2219-9365-2025-83-3

International Organization for Standardization. (2022). ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection—Information security management systems—Requirements. https://www.iso.org/standard/27001

International Organization for Standardization. (2022). ISO/IEC 27005:2022 Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection—Guidance on managing information security risks. https://www.iso.org/standard/80585.html

Chalyi, O., & Toliupa, S. (2025). Comparison of international audit standards for information security with automation perspectives. Cybersecurity: Education, Science, Technique, 3(31), 579–588. https://doi.org/10.28925/2663-4023.2025.31.1046

Souppaya, M., & Scarfone, K. (2022). Guide to enterprise patch management planning: Preventive maintenance for technology (NIST Special Publication 800-40 Rev. 4). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-40r4

Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams. (2023). Common Vulnerability Scoring System version 4.0: Specification document. https://www.first.org/cvss/v4.0/specification-document

Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams. (n.d.). Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS). Retrieved June 30, 2026, from https://www.first.org/epss/

Jiang, Y., Oo, N., Meng, Q., Lim, H. W., & Sikdar, B. (2025). A survey on vulnerability prioritization: Taxonomy, metrics, and research challenges. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11070

Адміністрація Державної служби спеціального зв’язку та захисту інформації України. (2026). Методичні рекомендації щодо проведення самооцінювання поточного стану кіберзахисту (Додаток до наказу Адміністрації Держспецзв’язку від 16.04.2026 № 285 «Деякі питання проведення оцінювання стану кіберзахисту»). https://cip.gov.ua/ua/docs/nakaz-administraciyi-derzhspeczv-yazku-vid-16-04-2026-285-deyaki-pitannya-provedennya-ocinyuvannya-stanu-kiberzakhistu

Korobeinikova, T., Shapovalov, B., Zhuravel, I., & Romanyuk, O. (2025). A weighted expert-based method for asset criticality assessment in cyber risk evaluation. In 2025 15th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies (ACIT). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACIT65614.2025.11185835

Masukume, M., Mhlanga, S., Mubvirwi, T., & Mushiri, T. (2020). Development of an asset criticality assessment tool: The case of a fertiliser manufacturing company. In Proceedings of the 2nd African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. https://www.ieomsociety.org/harare2020/papers/117.pdf

Ghazouani, M., Medromi, H., Sayouti, A., & Faris, S. (2014). Information security risk assessment: A practical approach with a mathematical formulation of risk. International Journal of Computer Applications, 103(8). https://doi.org/10.5120/18097-9155

Kostiuk, Y., Skladannyi, P., Samoilenko, Y., Khorolska, K., Bebeshko, B., & Sokolov, V. (2025). A system for assessing the interdependencies of information system agents in information security risk management using cognitive maps. In Cyber Hygiene & Conflict Management in Global Information Networks 2024 (CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 3925, pp. 249–264). https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3925/

Jiang, Y., Oo, N., Meng, Q., Lim, H. W., & Sikdar, B. (2025). VulRG: Multi-level explainable vulnerability patch ranking for complex systems using graphs. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11143

Downloads


Abstract views: 1

Published

2026-10-26

How to Cite

Volynets , V., & Voytovych, O. (2026). MECHANISM FOR ADAPTIVE PLANNING OF ENTERPRISE CYBERSECURITY AUDITS BASED ON COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF ASSET SECURITY STATE AND CRITICALITY. Electronic Professional Scientific Journal «Cybersecurity: Education, Science, Technique», 3(35), 430–441. https://doi.org/10.28925/2663-4023.2026.35.1422