Red team, purple team and detection validation
Red team and purple team exercises to identify defense-improvement priorities
Evaluate how your defenses prevent, detect and respond to agreed adversarial scenarios. ICA's proposed partner/specialist-led exercise connects observed detection and response gaps to a practical improvement backlog.
MIS
CISSP
CHISL
CPHIMS
CDH-E
Will Long Sr. · Founder
MIS · CHISL · CDH-E · CISSP · CPHIMS
Nearly 40 years in IT & cybersecurity
Former VP & CISO, Children’s Health System of Texas
Tim Pelikan · Co-Founder
Credential details pending confirmation
30 years in cybersecurity & data risk
Interviews & industry conversations
Coffee With Closers
Cybersecurity With Discern
“ICA provides distinctive security professionals who excel at building strong client relationships, demonstrate exceptional organization, and deliver practical, risk-based consulting recommendations to our clients.”
Michael Cox, CIPP/US
Chief Privacy Consultant & Founder, SoCal Privacy Consultants
Partner endorsement of ICA’s advisory work
Validate the defenses your team relies on
Your routine assessments may identify weaknesses without showing how security operations handles a controlled adversarial scenario. A CISO needs evidence for investment decisions. A SOC director needs to understand missed signals or uncertain escalation. Security engineering needs a clearer basis for improving detection coverage.
This exercise evaluates prevention, detection, escalation and response against agreed objectives. It helps distinguish what worked in the tested scenario from what needs attention. Use that evidence to decide which detection or response improvements deserve priority.
Set objectives before choosing exercise coverage
Start with the defensive question you need answered. You might want to understand whether a selected scenario produces usable alerts, or whether those alerts reach the right response owner. The objective determines the relevant assets and participating teams.
Agree the authorized environment, scenario boundaries and level of collaboration with defenders. A red-team approach can focus on pursuing defined objectives; a purple-team approach brings exercise specialists and defenders together to examine observations. The engagement establishes visibility and coordination arrangements rather than assuming every exercise follows the same model.
Compare controlled activity with defensive evidence
The proposed method is a controlled specialist-led exercise supported by relevant evidence review. Before active testing, establish written authorization, asset ownership and rules of engagement. Define safety limits and deconfliction: how designated contacts distinguish exercise activity from a real incident and pause work when necessary.
Compare the agreed exercise activity with available defensive records. Relevant evidence may include security logs, alerts and escalation records, alongside participating teams' accounts of their decisions. An absent alert needs context: missing telemetry, detection logic and handling decisions raise different improvement questions.
This is active defense validation. Interviews or configuration review alone cannot establish how defenders handled the tested scenario. Any scanning, penetration-testing activity or human-risk simulation must be expressly authorized within scope.
Turn exercise observations into an improvement backlog
The catalog's typical outputs provide a shared reference for leadership and delivery owners. Their detail and format are agreed for the exercise:
Exercise report: Describes the agreed objectives, coverage and observed activity so leadership can interpret the findings within their tested boundaries.
Detection findings: Records what the exercise revealed about detection and related escalation or response. Security owners can use these observations to investigate coverage gaps.
Lessons learned: Captures operational learning for the participating teams, including coordination issues that affected the exercise.
Improvement backlog: Organizes recommended follow-up work so your team can discuss priorities and assign implementation responsibilities.
Prepare the people, access and safety arrangements
Scoping establishes objectives and the required specialist involvement. Delivery depends on confirming suitable partner capability and insurance. The selected environment, exercise depth and collaboration model affect cost and timing. Evidence access and your team's capacity to participate also matter.
Identify an accountable sponsor, a security-operations contact and owners of the proposed assets. Prepare an accurate inventory and explain operational constraints. Agree evidence handling, access permissions and third-party approvals before work begins.
Participants need a clear escalation path and stop conditions. Rules of engagement should identify who can authorize changes to scope. These arrangements support controlled work while keeping the exercise distinct from an actual incident.
Choose the right assessment for the decision
A standard penetration test concentrates on exploitable weaknesses within its agreed target scope. This offering centers on exercise objectives and the defensive observations they produce. A SOC maturity assessment instead reviews monitoring processes and program evidence; live detection validation requires its own scope.
Findings apply to the scenarios and conditions tested. They do not establish complete detection coverage or guarantee resilience against future attacks. The improvement backlog recommends work; remediation execution and retesting require separate agreement. The exercise does not provide ongoing monitoring or emergency incident response.
Questions about red team, purple team and detection validation
Who is this exercise suited to?
CISOs, SOC directors and security engineering leaders who need evidence beyond routine assessments. It is particularly relevant when your team wants to examine detection coverage or how an agreed scenario moves through escalation and response.
Will it cover every system and attack scenario?
Coverage follows the agreed objectives, authorized assets and safety boundaries. Select scenarios that address your decision. A scoped exercise cannot establish how every system would behave against every threat.
How is defensive performance evaluated?
The exercise compares controlled activity with available logs, alerts and response evidence. Participating teams help explain what they observed and did. The review must distinguish an observed gap from a conclusion that the evidence cannot support.
What determines cost and timing?
Objectives, environment complexity, specialist requirements and the collaboration model shape the engagement. Authorization, evidence availability and client participation affect planning. Partner capability and insurance must be confirmed before delivery commitments are made.
Should we choose a penetration test instead?
Choose based on your primary question. A penetration test addresses exploitable weaknesses in scoped targets. Red-team or purple-team validation examines agreed exercise objectives and defensive behavior. The collaboration model should be explicit in either case.
Does the exercise include fixing detection gaps?
The typical outputs include detection findings and an improvement backlog. Your team uses them to plan changes. Implementing detection logic, changing security configurations or repeating tests requires a separately agreed scope.
Define the defense question worth testing
Bring the scenario or detection concern your team needs to understand. Discuss a controlled exercise with clear objectives, authorized boundaries and the right specialist involvement. A defined scope gives your leaders a useful basis for interpreting the findings and deciding what to improve next.
Validate the defenses your team relies on
Your routine assessments may identify weaknesses without showing how security operations handles a controlled adversarial scenario. A CISO needs evidence for investment decisions. A SOC director needs to understand missed signals or uncertain escalation. Security engineering needs a clearer basis for improving detection coverage.
This exercise evaluates prevention, detection, escalation and response against agreed objectives. It helps distinguish what worked in the tested scenario from what needs attention. Use that evidence to decide which detection or response improvements deserve priority.
Set objectives before choosing exercise coverage
Start with the defensive question you need answered. You might want to understand whether a selected scenario produces usable alerts, or whether those alerts reach the right response owner. The objective determines the relevant assets and participating teams.
Agree the authorized environment, scenario boundaries and level of collaboration with defenders. A red-team approach can focus on pursuing defined objectives; a purple-team approach brings exercise specialists and defenders together to examine observations. The engagement establishes visibility and coordination arrangements rather than assuming every exercise follows the same model.
Compare controlled activity with defensive evidence
The proposed method is a controlled specialist-led exercise supported by relevant evidence review. Before active testing, establish written authorization, asset ownership and rules of engagement. Define safety limits and deconfliction: how designated contacts distinguish exercise activity from a real incident and pause work when necessary.
Compare the agreed exercise activity with available defensive records. Relevant evidence may include security logs, alerts and escalation records, alongside participating teams' accounts of their decisions. An absent alert needs context: missing telemetry, detection logic and handling decisions raise different improvement questions.
This is active defense validation. Interviews or configuration review alone cannot establish how defenders handled the tested scenario. Any scanning, penetration-testing activity or human-risk simulation must be expressly authorized within scope.
Turn exercise observations into an improvement backlog
The catalog's typical outputs provide a shared reference for leadership and delivery owners. Their detail and format are agreed for the exercise:
Exercise report: Describes the agreed objectives, coverage and observed activity so leadership can interpret the findings within their tested boundaries.
Detection findings: Records what the exercise revealed about detection and related escalation or response. Security owners can use these observations to investigate coverage gaps.
Lessons learned: Captures operational learning for the participating teams, including coordination issues that affected the exercise.
Improvement backlog: Organizes recommended follow-up work so your team can discuss priorities and assign implementation responsibilities.
Prepare the people, access and safety arrangements
Scoping establishes objectives and the required specialist involvement. Delivery depends on confirming suitable partner capability and insurance. The selected environment, exercise depth and collaboration model affect cost and timing. Evidence access and your team's capacity to participate also matter.
Identify an accountable sponsor, a security-operations contact and owners of the proposed assets. Prepare an accurate inventory and explain operational constraints. Agree evidence handling, access permissions and third-party approvals before work begins.
Participants need a clear escalation path and stop conditions. Rules of engagement should identify who can authorize changes to scope. These arrangements support controlled work while keeping the exercise distinct from an actual incident.
Choose the right assessment for the decision
A standard penetration test concentrates on exploitable weaknesses within its agreed target scope. This offering centers on exercise objectives and the defensive observations they produce. A SOC maturity assessment instead reviews monitoring processes and program evidence; live detection validation requires its own scope.
Findings apply to the scenarios and conditions tested. They do not establish complete detection coverage or guarantee resilience against future attacks. The improvement backlog recommends work; remediation execution and retesting require separate agreement. The exercise does not provide ongoing monitoring or emergency incident response.
Questions about red team, purple team and detection validation
Who is this exercise suited to?
CISOs, SOC directors and security engineering leaders who need evidence beyond routine assessments. It is particularly relevant when your team wants to examine detection coverage or how an agreed scenario moves through escalation and response.
Will it cover every system and attack scenario?
Coverage follows the agreed objectives, authorized assets and safety boundaries. Select scenarios that address your decision. A scoped exercise cannot establish how every system would behave against every threat.
How is defensive performance evaluated?
The exercise compares controlled activity with available logs, alerts and response evidence. Participating teams help explain what they observed and did. The review must distinguish an observed gap from a conclusion that the evidence cannot support.
What determines cost and timing?
Objectives, environment complexity, specialist requirements and the collaboration model shape the engagement. Authorization, evidence availability and client participation affect planning. Partner capability and insurance must be confirmed before delivery commitments are made.
Should we choose a penetration test instead?
Choose based on your primary question. A penetration test addresses exploitable weaknesses in scoped targets. Red-team or purple-team validation examines agreed exercise objectives and defensive behavior. The collaboration model should be explicit in either case.
Does the exercise include fixing detection gaps?
The typical outputs include detection findings and an improvement backlog. Your team uses them to plan changes. Implementing detection logic, changing security configurations or repeating tests requires a separately agreed scope.
Define the defense question worth testing
Bring the scenario or detection concern your team needs to understand. Discuss a controlled exercise with clear objectives, authorized boundaries and the right specialist involvement. A defined scope gives your leaders a useful basis for interpreting the findings and deciding what to improve next.