Let our simplicity solve your complexity!

“Cyber attacks are now the foremost risk to the global financial system, even more so than the lending and liquidity risks that led to the 2008 financial crisis, according to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.” (CNN interview 2021)

Global organizations are facing growing cyber threats estimated to cost US $10.29 trillion by 2026. (Statista, 2023)

The Boards Fiduciary Responsibility

Board members have the ultimate responsibility to demonstrate that they are monitoring for their organization’s cyber security and AI  posture. Fiduciary duties include oversight, risk mitigation, and regulatory compliance. Personal liability is a potential consequence of negligence in cybersecurity governance.

 

The Problem Traditional cybersecurity governance is reactive and disconnected from business outcomes. Organizations rely on static compliance checklists that fail to predict emerging threats or quantify the actual financial impact of potential breaches. This creates a dangerous “blind spot” where boards make multi-million dollar risk decisions based on outdated data, often only realizing their exposure after a catastrophic event like NotPetya has already caused irreversible damage.

The Solution VeriDuty transforms cyber governance into a predictive, financial decision-support engine. By leveraging patent-pending counterfactual analytics, the platform simulates specific attack scenarios against an organization’s unique infrastructure to answer “what if?” questions before they become reality. It translates technical vulnerabilities into concrete business metrics—such as projected downtime hours, revenue loss, and remediation costs—enabling boards to prioritize investments based on quantified return on risk mitigation (RoRM) rather than abstract compliance scores.

How VeriDuty is Different Unlike standard GRC tools that merely map controls to regulations, VeriDuty continuously evaluates whether cybersecurity and AI governance controls are present, effective, and supported by credible evidence. Rather than asking only whether an organization meets a NIST requirement today, VeriDuty asks: “If these governance controls are absent, weak, deteriorating, or no longer being actively monitored, what adverse outcomes become more likely?”

As new evidence is collected, VeriDuty updates its confidence levels through Bayesian analysis, providing an ongoing assessment of governance effectiveness rather than a point-in-time compliance snapshot. The platform continuously monitors governance indicators, identifies emerging gaps, and highlights areas where oversight may no longer be sufficient to demonstrate prudent fiduciary care.

When a breach, AI incident, regulatory inquiry, shareholder challenge, or audit occurs, VeriDuty provides a complete, auditable record of governance activities, evidence reviews, decisions, accountability assignments, monitoring results, and corrective actions. This allows boards and management to demonstrate not only that governance controls existed, but that they were continuously monitored, evaluated, and acted upon in accordance with recognized frameworks such as NIST CSF 2.0 Govern and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework.

In this way, VeriDuty transforms governance from a periodic compliance exercise into a continuously monitored, evidence-based process that provides defensible proof of fiduciary oversight before, during, and after an adverse event.

Our solution: VeriDuty Fiduciary Compliance Management System

What Might Have Changed Had VeriDuty been present

Using counterfactual analysis (what if VeriDuty was in place?) we ran tests using actual data taken from the Maersk 2017 Supply Chain Cyber Breach. The attack shut down global operations, halted shipping, closed ports, and forced a full rebuild of IT systems.

The malware entered through a Ukrainian accounting software update. Although it looked like ransomware, it was a destructive wiper—data could not be recovered.

DowntimeFaster patching and network segmentation could have contained the ransomware to a smaller subset of systems, cutting the global outage from days to hours (or possibly avoiding it altogether). 
Financial LossThe $ 300 M+ estimated loss could have been reduced dramatically—perhaps to a few tens of millions—by avoiding the need for massive system rebuilds and lost freight revenue. 
Reputational DamagDemonstrating a proactive, board level governance process would have softened stakeholder criticism and shown regulators that Maersk exercised due diligence. 
Insurance & Legal Exposure Auditable evidence of risk aware governance would likely improve claim outcomes with cyber insurers and reduce litigation risk. 

 Board Risk Monitoring and Planning Responsibilities No Longer Optional; It Is A Core Fiduciary Duty.