Certified: The GIAC GSTRT Audio Course

In this episode, we focus on what makes a policy enforceable in the real world, which is not how formal it sounds, but how clearly people can understand it and apply it without guessing. Policies fail most often because they are written for the author’s satisfaction rather than for the reader’s behavior under pressure. When language is vague, teams interpret it differently, enforcement becomes inconsistent, and exceptions multiply until the policy is mostly symbolic. Clear policies reduce friction because they answer the questions people actually have, what is in scope, what outcome is mandatory, who decides, and how compliance will be verified. They also reduce conflict because they create shared reality, so teams can plan work and budgets with fewer surprises. The aim is to write policies that are readable, testable, aligned to supporting artifacts, and strong enough to endure audits and incidents without collapsing into debate. If you can do that, policy becomes an operational tool rather than an administrative tax.

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 policy should start with clarity about audience, scope, intent, and mandatory outcomes, because those four elements determine whether the policy will guide behavior or become a document people avoid. Audience is who must follow it and who will be held accountable, and you should write for that audience’s vocabulary and decision level. Scope defines what systems, data types, teams, or situations are covered, and it should be specific enough that teams can know whether the policy applies without a meeting. Intent explains why the policy exists in outcome terms, connecting it to mission and risk so it does not feel arbitrary. Mandatory outcomes are the non-negotiable results that must be true, independent of tool choices or implementation details. When these are clear, the rest of the policy becomes easier to write because every requirement can be tested against whether it supports those outcomes. Without this foundation, policies tend to drift into broad statements that sound reasonable but do not constrain behavior.

Plain language, active voice, and measurable verbs are the mechanics that make the policy readable and enforceable. Plain language does not mean simplistic thinking, it means removing the friction that causes misinterpretation. Active voice makes accountability clear, because it names who must do what, rather than hiding responsibility in passive constructions. Measurable verbs matter because verbs like ensure, support, and maintain are often too vague unless they are tied to observable actions or testable conditions. Instead, use verbs that imply verification, such as implement, log, retain, restrict, encrypt, review, approve, and remove. These verbs help readers translate policy into action because they describe what must happen, not what should be hoped for. They also help auditors and reviewers, because the language naturally suggests what evidence would show compliance. The more your verbs point to observable behavior, the less your policy depends on interpretation.

A common source of confusion is mixing strong and weak obligation language, so you should separate must from should deliberately. Must indicates a mandatory requirement, and it should be used only when the organization is willing to enforce the requirement and accept the operational cost of doing so. Should indicates a recommended practice, and it should be used when flexibility is allowed based on context, maturity, or risk. If you blur these, teams will treat must statements as optional or treat should statements as mandatory, and either way you create friction and drift. The problem becomes worse when different reviewers apply different interpretations, because enforcement then depends on who is in the room rather than on what the policy says. A clean approach is to keep policies focused on must outcomes and push should guidance into guidelines, where flexibility is expected. When you do use should in a policy, you should explain the conditions under which deviation is acceptable, otherwise should becomes a hidden must that no one can measure consistently. Clear obligation language is one of the simplest ways to prevent confusion and inconsistent enforcement.

Ownership, accountability, and escalation paths must be explicit because enforcement requires decision-making, and decision-making fails when it is not assigned. Ownership is who maintains the policy and ensures it stays aligned with mission and risk over time. Accountability is who is responsible for implementing the requirements in their scope, which may involve system owners, service owners, or functional leaders. Escalation paths define what happens when compliance cannot be achieved, when exceptions are needed, or when conflicts arise between requirements and operational constraints. Without escalation paths, teams will either quietly ignore the policy or create informal workarounds that never surface until an audit or incident. Clear escalation also reduces conflict because teams know where disagreements go and how decisions are made. It turns policy into a managed system rather than a static statement. In complex environments, the ability to escalate and decide is as important as the requirements themselves, because it is how you handle reality without sacrificing integrity.

Requirements must be testable with objective acceptance criteria, because enforceability depends on verification. A requirement is testable when it can be assessed as met or not met based on evidence that does not require subjective judgment. This does not mean every requirement must include a full test plan, but it does mean the requirement implies what proof is expected. For example, stating that logs must be retained for a defined period is testable, while stating that logs must be retained appropriately is not. Stating that access must be reviewed on a defined cadence is testable, while stating that access must be reviewed regularly invites interpretation. Objective criteria also help implementation teams because they can design to a target instead of guessing what reviewers will accept. If you cannot define objective acceptance criteria, you may be writing a principle rather than a requirement, and that content might belong in a policy intent section rather than in enforceable requirements. Making requirements testable is a discipline that reduces rework because teams get it right the first time.

Alignment with standards, procedures, and guidelines is what keeps policies durable and avoids turning them into technical manuals. A policy should point to the required outcomes and the governance boundaries, while standards translate those outcomes into measurable technical requirements. Procedures then describe how operational tasks are performed consistently to meet the standards, and guidelines provide recommended practices that help teams succeed without being mandatory. When these layers are aligned, a policy change does not require rewriting every technical detail, and a technical change does not require re-approving the policy intent. Alignment also improves compliance because teams can find the right level of detail for their task. Designers can consult standards, operators can follow procedures, and leaders can reference policies when making tradeoffs. If your policy includes technical specifics that will change frequently, move those specifics into standards where they can be maintained by the right owners. Clear layering reduces confusion because each document type has a clear job and a clear audience.

A strong policy also includes an exception process with thresholds and approval authorities, because exceptions will happen and unmanaged exceptions create drift. The exception process should define when an exception is allowed, what information must be provided, what risk acceptance or compensating controls are required, and who has the authority to approve. Thresholds matter because not all exceptions are equal, and high-impact exceptions should require higher-level approval and stronger documentation. Approval authority should be clear so teams do not shop for a friendly approver or assume silence is approval. The exception process should also include time bounds and review checkpoints so exceptions do not become permanent state. This does not mean exceptions are a failure, it means they are a managed decision with visibility. A transparent exception process preserves policy integrity by keeping the boundary intact while allowing controlled deviation when reality demands it. When exceptions are clear and disciplined, teams are less likely to hide noncompliance, which is one of the largest practical risks in governance.

A concrete example helps tie these concepts together, such as a password policy that mandates length, rotation, and multifactor triggers. The policy should state the mandatory outcomes in plain language, such as accounts must be protected against unauthorized access and authentication must be strong enough for the risk of the system. Then it should define must requirements that are measurable, such as minimum password length for specific account categories, conditions that require stronger authentication, and when password changes are required. Rotation should be handled carefully, because rotation is not always the best control in modern environments, so if you include it, it should be justified by risk context and paired with stronger measures such as multi-factor requirements for sensitive access. Multifactor triggers might include administrative access, remote access, access to sensitive data, or access from untrusted networks, and these triggers should be written so they can be tested. The policy should also specify who owns compliance, such as system owners and identity governance teams, and how exceptions are approved, such as when legacy systems cannot meet the requirement immediately. The point is that the policy mandates outcomes and measurable requirements, while the standards and procedures define exact implementation details and verification methods.

Vague statements are a common pitfall because they invite inconsistent enforcement and drift. Vague language often appears as broad aspirations, undefined time words, and ambiguous qualifiers. When a policy says timely, appropriate, or adequate, it sounds professional, but it leaves room for interpretation that will differ across teams. Inconsistency is not only confusing, it is risky, because attackers and failures exploit gaps created by uneven implementation. Vague statements also make audits painful, because reviewers will probe until they find an interpretation mismatch, and teams will spend time arguing about what the policy meant rather than fixing controls. Drift follows because people naturally choose the interpretation that is easiest under pressure. The solution is not writing longer policies, it is writing clearer ones, using specific nouns, measurable verbs, and objective criteria. When you remove ambiguity, you reduce both enforcement conflict and operational rework, because teams know what target they are aiming at. Clarity is the cheapest risk reduction you can buy in governance.

A quick win is adopting a simple policy template today, because templates create consistent structure and make it harder to forget key elements like scope, ownership, and exceptions. A template should force you to name audience, scope, intent, mandatory outcomes, enforcement language, ownership and accountability, and the exception process. It should also prompt alignment references, pointing to the standards and procedures that implement the policy without duplicating their details. The value of a template is that it standardizes the thinking, not just the formatting, because it ensures each policy is built on the same core components. Templates also speed review because stakeholders know where to look for the answers they care about. Over time, consistent templates reduce policy sprawl because new documents must justify their existence and fit into the governance system. This helps organizations move from a pile of documents to a coherent policy framework. The quick win is real because it improves policy quality immediately without requiring new tooling or major program change.

A realistic scenario is when an audit identifies interpretation gaps, meaning two teams implemented the policy differently and both believed they were compliant. In that situation, the fix is not arguing about intent, it is rewriting the wording so intent becomes unambiguous and testable. You start by identifying the phrase that created ambiguity, then you ask what evidence would prove compliance, and you rewrite the requirement to point directly to that evidence. You also clarify scope, because many interpretation gaps come from unclear boundaries, such as whether a requirement applies to internal systems, third-party services, or specific data classes. Then you update alignment artifacts, such as standards and procedures, so the policy and its implementation layer remain consistent. The key is to treat the audit finding as feedback about language quality, not as blame for a team. When you correct wording quickly and transparently, you reduce future audit pain and you restore trust in the governance system. This is how policies mature, by learning from real misinterpretations and removing the ambiguity at the source.

Hold a simple memory anchor for this work: clarity, measurability, ownership, exceptions, and alignment. Clarity means the audience can understand what is required without specialized interpretation. Measurability means requirements can be verified with objective evidence rather than subjective judgment. Ownership means someone is responsible for maintaining the policy and someone is accountable for implementing it in scope. Exceptions means deviations are managed with thresholds, approvals, and time bounds rather than hidden drift. Alignment means the policy fits cleanly with standards, procedures, and guidelines so each layer does its job and remains maintainable. When you use this anchor, you can review a policy draft quickly and spot the gaps that will cause future confusion. It also helps you keep policies short because it keeps you focused on what makes them enforceable, not on what makes them sound impressive. This anchor is practical because it maps directly to the most common failure modes in policy writing.

To conclude, publish the draft once it meets the clarity and testability bar, then schedule a walkthrough for signoff so stakeholders align on meaning before implementation begins. Publishing is not only distribution, it is committing to a shared definition of what must be true, and that shared definition must be stable to reduce rework. The walkthrough should focus on scope, mandatory outcomes, testability, ownership, and exceptions, because those are where misunderstandings usually hide. Use the session to confirm that the policy aligns with supporting standards and procedures and that the enforcement path is realistic. If stakeholders disagree, capture the tradeoffs and resolve them with decision rights rather than with endless debate. Once signoff is complete, communicate how compliance will be measured and how exceptions will be handled so teams can plan. When you do this well, your policy becomes a reliable tool for coordination and risk reduction, and teams will follow it because they can understand it and because it fits into a governance system that is consistent and fair.