Dallas
Dallas Digital Forensics | LCG Global
Address:
306 Morton St. Richmond, TX 77469What Our Clients Say
Latest Blog in The eDiscovery Zone
From Response to Prevention: Threat Assessments That Actually Matter – Part 5
Organizations frequently use the terms vulnerability assessment, threat assessment, risk assessment, and protective intelligence interchangeably. They are related, but they answer different questions, and confusing them can leave serious gaps in a security program.
A vulnerability assessment examines weaknesses that could be exploited. It considers physical security, technology, policies, staffing, training, communications, and operational practices. In simple terms, it asks: Where are we exposed?
A threat assessment evaluates a person, group, circumstance, or emerging behavior that could cause harm. It considers such factors as intent, capability, access, planning, grievances, escalation, and proximity to a potential target. It asks: Who or what may cause harm, and how likely is the concern to progress?
From Response to Prevention: Security Program to Intelligence Program – Part 4
Traditional security programs generally protect facilities, control access, safeguard assets, and respond when an incident occurs. A risk intelligence program has a broader mission: identify emerging concerns, evaluate information, support leadership decisions, and coordinate preventive action before threatening behavior escalates into violence or operational disruption.
During my public-sector service, I was part of a team that helped transform a statewide security operation from a largely reactive support function into a multidisciplinary risk-intelligence program.
Historically, security was commonly viewed as a building-support service. Its responsibilities included unlocking doors, managing visitors, conducting routine patrols, assisting employees, and responding to incidents. Although these functions were necessary, security was not consistently recognized as a professional investigative, intelligence, or risk-management capability.
That model also meant security was frequently brought into a situation too late. Employees reported concerns to supervisors, who elevated them through multiple levels of management. Individuals without investigative or behavioral-threat-assessment training were effectively deciding whether a concern warranted professional review. Serious warning behaviors could be minimized, while routine workplace conflicts might be escalated based on fear or perception rather than an objective risk assessment.
The transition to risk intelligence changed both the purpose of the security program and how information moved through the organization.
From Response to Prevention: Seeing the Whole Picture – Part 3
Turning Reports into Actionable Intelligence
When I worked for the State of Vermont, our team did not treat an SSIR submission as simply a complaint to be documented. It initiated a structured, multidisciplinary assessment. Each team member was assigned a specific role so that the available information could be collected quickly, independently verified, and evaluated within the larger context.
Depending on the circumstances and available legal authority, that work could include:
