This is a good point:

Part of the problem is that we are constantly handed lists…list of required controls…list of things we are being asked to fix or improve…lists of new projects…lists of threats, and so on, that are not ranked for risks. For example, we are often given a cybersecurity guideline (e.g., PCI-DSS, HIPAA, SOX, NIST, etc.) with hundreds of recommendations. They are all great recommendations, which if followed, will reduce risk in your environment.

What they do not tell you is which of the recommended things will have the most impact on best reducing risk in your environment. They do not tell you that one, two or three of these things…among the hundreds that have been given to you, will reduce more risk than all the others.

[…]

The solution?

Here is one big one: Do not use or rely on un-risk-ranked lists. Require any list of controls, threats, defenses, solutions to be risk-ranked according to how much actual risk they will reduce in the current environment if implemented.

[…]

This specific CISA document has at least 21 main recommendations, many of which lead to two or more other more specific recommendations. Overall, it has several dozen recommendations, each of which individually will likely take weeks to months to fulfill in any environment if not already accomplished. Any person following this document is…rightly…going to be expected to evaluate and implement all those recommendations. And doing so will absolutely reduce risk.

The catch is: There are two recommendations that WILL DO MORE THAN ALL THE REST ADDED TOGETHER TO REDUCE CYBERSECURITY RISK most efficiently: patching and using multifactor authentication (MFA). Patching is listed third. MFA is listed eighth. And there is nothing to indicate their ability to significantly reduce cybersecurity risk as compared to the other recommendations. Two of these things are not like the other, but how is anyone reading the document supposed to know that patching and using MFA really matter more than all the rest?