{"id":9318,"date":"2026-09-07T17:32:13","date_gmt":"2026-09-07T17:32:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/?p=9318"},"modified":"2026-09-07T17:32:13","modified_gmt":"2026-09-07T17:32:13","slug":"how-to-test-a-ddos-incident-response-playbook-with-tabletop-exercises","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/?p=9318","title":{"rendered":"How to Test a DDoS Incident Response Playbook with Tabletop Exercises"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUse tabletop exercises to test DDoS response plans without generating attack traffic.<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBuild scenarios around volumetric, protocol, and application-layer DDoS attacks.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSet measurable objectives covering detection, mitigation, communication, and recovery.<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tInclude security, network, legal, communications, executive, and provider stakeholders.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLet response gaps surface naturally instead of correcting participants during the exercise.<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDocument every finding with an owner and deadline for remediation.<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRetest after major infrastructure changes and at least annually.<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUse network visibility to support investigation of unusual traffic patterns.<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Most DDoS incident response plans get written, approved, and then sit in a shared folder until someone needs them during an actual attack. At that point it\u2019s too late to find out the plan has a hole in it. The first live event is a bad time to discover that nobody actually knows who\u2019s allowed to call the ISP.<\/p>\n

The way you test a DDoS incident response playbook before that happens is a tabletop exercise: get the right people in a room for a couple of hours, walk through a fake DDoS attack<\/a>, and see where the plan falls apart while the stakes are zero. The rest of this covers how to do that properly, using the same approach CISA and NIST use to test incident response plans at the federal level.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Why Does a DDoS Incident Response Plan Need Its Own Tabletop Exercise?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Because DDoS was the most frequently reported incident type in ENISA\u2019s Threat Landscape report, and it doesn\u2019t test the same things a ransomware drill tests.<\/p>\n

ENISA\u2019s Threat Landscape report reviewed close to 4,900 incidents across EU member states between July 2024 and June 2025. DDoS accounted for roughly 77% of everything reported, which put it well ahead of intrusions in second place. Public administration took the worst of it, mostly from hacktivist campaigns hitting government portals and other critical services.<\/p>\n

The finance sector got its own breakdown in the same report: DDoS and service disruption made up 46% of reported incidents against banks and credit institutions, more than data theft, phishing, and ransomware combined.<\/p>\n

A ransomware<\/a> tabletop is mostly about negotiation and recovery timelines. A DDoS incident response exercise is about speed. Can the team tell malicious traffic apart from legitimate users fast enough, and can they actually decide, in the middle of an active attack, whether to activate traffic filtering or rate limiting? Most generic \u201ccyber incident\u201d exercises never get specific enough to test that decision chain, which is exactly why a DDoS incident response playbook needs its own dedicated exercise instead of fifteen minutes inside something broader.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

What is a DDoS Tabletop Exercise?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

It\u2019s a facilitated discussion about how your team would respond to a denial of service attack<\/a>. No production systems are modified and no attack traffic is generated.<\/p>\n

NIST Special Publication 800-84 provides guidance for designing, conducting, and evaluating tabletop exercises: a facilitator runs a scenario, and participants work through roles and decisions against predefined objectives. Compare that to a live simulation, where someone actually generates controlled attack traffic against a real system to test whether the mitigation strategy holds. Different exercise, different cost, different purpose.<\/p>\n

Run the tabletop exercise first. It\u2019s an afternoon, not a maintenance window, and it can expose coordination and decision-making gaps before you\u2019ve spent budget proving the response with real traffic.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

What NIST and CISA Guidance Applies to DDoS Incident Response?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Two documents get you most of the way there, no need to build a framework from scratch.<\/p>\n

NIST SP 800-84 handles how to actually run the session: scope, structure, what to document afterward. For DDoS-specific content, CISA, the FBI, and the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center jointly publish Understanding and Responding to Distributed Denial-of-Service Attacks. It breaks attack characteristics into three buckets that map neatly onto scenario design: volumetric floods aimed at consuming bandwidth, protocol attacks that exploit weaknesses in network protocols<\/a> like TCP and UDP, and application layer attacks aimed at a specific service or endpoint. That\u2019s still the current version as of this writing, with no newer federal replacement published.<\/p>\n

CISA also keeps a free library of Tabletop Exercise Packages with prebuilt objectives, discussion prompts, and after-action report templates, a reasonable starting point instead of building one from a blank page. On a much larger scale, CISA runs Cyber Storm, its national cyber exercise series, with Cyber Storm X slated for fall 2026. No organization needs that scale to test a DDoS incident response playbook internally, but it shows how much weight federal agencies put on rehearsal over documentation.<\/p>\n

Worth knowing if your broader incident response plan<\/a> hasn\u2019t been touched recently: NIST retired SP 800-61 Rev. 2 in April 2025. Revision 3 ties incident response to the six functions of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0, Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. It also treats exercise preparation as an ongoing part of cybersecurity risk management, not a once-a-year compliance task. Whatever this tabletop turns up should feed back into that loop instead of sitting unread until next year\u2019s audit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
Critical Incident Response: Key Steps for the First 72 Hours<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhat data has been potentially exposed?<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIncursion detection and Persistence detection<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tHow should I respond?<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDownload the Whitepaper<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

How Do You Set Objectives For a DDoS Tabletop Exercise?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Keep the list short. Three objectives is usually enough, and each one has to be gradable, not something soft like \u201cimprove overall security posture.\u201d<\/p>\n

For a DDoS-focused session, this typically covers:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDoes the DDoS section of the incident response plan match what the network architecture actually looks like today, contracts included?<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIs it clear who declares an active attack, who calls the ISP or DDoS protection provider, and who manages external communication with customers?<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCan legal, communications, security, and an executive actually coordinate fast, or only on paper?<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhere does the plan assume a detection capability the monitoring tools don’t really have?<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

NIST emphasizes that exercise design should be driven by defined objectives like these. Anything that doesn\u2019t map to one just eats time in a session that usually only runs two or three hours.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Who Should Be on a DDoS Incident Response Team?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

More people than security operations and network administrators, usually. Leaving people out here is where most tabletop exercises go wrong before they even start.<\/p>\n

Bring:<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNetwork administrators who know the current routing and filtering setup, not the configuration from two changes ago.<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe DDoS response team, meaning the security staff who would actually be running detection and mitigation.<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA communications lead who owns customer and media messaging if a critical service goes down publicly.<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLegal or the compliance team, especially if a long enough service disruption in your industry triggers a notification requirement under regulatory rules.<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn executive sponsor who can approve bringing in a third-party mitigation vendor mid-attack without a week of sign-offs.<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhoever manages the ISP or cloud provider relationship, even if that vendor isn’t physically in the room.<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Skipping legal or an executive sponsor is probably the most common mistake here. The technical side can usually improvise a mitigation strategy under pressure. Getting fast approval to spend money or make a public statement is the part that actually breaks during a real DDoS event.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

How Do You Build a DDoS Attack Scenario for a Tabletop Exercise?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Base it on the three attack categories CISA already defines, and make sure each part forces an actual decision instead of just narrating what happens next.<\/p>\n

A focused structure for most organizations can be run over roughly two hours:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Detection.<\/strong> Monitoring tools flag a sudden spike in inbound traffic to a public-facing application. The room has to work out, on the spot, whether this is attack traffic or a legitimate spike, a product launch, a news mention, a marketing push. Who gets paged, and how long does it actually take?<\/p>\n

Volumetric escalation.<\/strong> The spike gets confirmed as a volumetric attack closing in on bandwidth limits. This is usually where a first-time session stalls: does anyone actually have standing authority to trigger traffic filtering or blackholing at the ISP level without a long approval chain? What happens to legitimate traffic while that filter is active?<\/p>\n

Shift to the application layer.<\/strong> Twenty minutes later, the pattern changes. Volumetric filtering is holding, but a second wave hits a login endpoint with request volume built to mimic normal user behavior. Can the team separate attack traffic from real customers at this layer, or is the honest answer no? What\u2019s the false positives risk if the team overcorrects and blocks legitimate users along with it?<\/p>\n

Communication under pressure.<\/strong> Service has been degraded for over an hour and customers are complaining publicly. Who owns internal communication here? Who approves the external statement, and how long does that realistically take? Does the length of the outage trigger a regulatory compliance notification requirement in your sector?<\/p>\n

Recovery.<\/strong> Attack traffic drops off. How does the team confirm the threat actor actually stopped instead of pausing before a second wave? What has to happen before declaring affected systems clean and restoring normal operations?<\/p>\n

Change the attack vector<\/a> every time you run this. A response team that only ever rehearses a volumetric flood tends to freeze the first time an application layer attack shows up instead, because the mitigation strategy looks nothing alike.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

How Do You Run a DDoS Tabletop Exercise?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Let the facilitator move the room through the scenario and ask the hard questions out loud, without correcting wrong answers as they come up.<\/p>\n

The entire value of a tabletop exercise is seeing what people genuinely believe the process is, mistaken assumptions included. If someone says \u201cI thought the ISP handled blackholing automatically\u201d and that\u2019s wrong, write it down and keep the session moving. That gap is exactly what you came to find. Fixing it belongs in the plan afterward, not in a mid-discussion correction that makes people stop being honest for the rest of the session.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

What Should a DDoS Post Incident Report Cover?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Every finding needs a name and a deadline attached, or the exercise produced a transcript instead of an improvement.<\/p>\n

CISA\u2019s tabletop package includes after-action report templates built for exactly this, capturing what got identified, what got contained, and where the process actually broke down at each stage. For a DDoS-specific exercise, the post incident review should answer:<\/p>\n

Where did people disagree about who owns a decision, and has the plan actually been rewritten to close that gapDid the session surface an outdated contact list, an expired vendor agreement, or a missing escalation path to the ISP or CDNWhere does the plan assume a detection capability your monitoring tools don\u2019t actually have What needs to change in the incident response plan before the next exercise, and who\u2019s accountable for that change\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

A report with findings but no owners gets filed and forgotten. Lessons learned that never get written back into the plan aren\u2019t lessons learned, they\u2019re just notes. The next real DDoS event finds the same holes in the same places because nothing on paper actually changed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

How Often Should You Test a DDoS Incident Response Plan?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

At minimum once a year, and again after any significant change to network infrastructure, a new public-facing service launch, or a near-miss that exposed something nobody had planned for.<\/p>\n

DDoS has held the top spot in threat landscape reporting for a while now, which is reason enough to give it a dedicated annual slot instead of tucking it into a broader ransomware or phishing exercise where it gets fifteen minutes of discussion and no real follow-through.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Why is DDoS Attack Traffic Hard to Detect?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Because well-run attacks are built to look like normal traffic, not like an obvious flood.<\/p>\n

The same problem repeats across incident response reviews:<\/strong> teams can\u2019t separate attack traffic from legitimate traffic fast enough, especially once an attacker shifts into protocol or application layer techniques built to blend into normal internet traffic. A basic rate-limiting rule catches an obvious volumetric spike. It does a lot less against a slow, distributed request pattern designed to look like real customers logging in.<\/p>\n

Fidelis Network<\/a>\u00ae can support this visibility with Deep Session Inspection and behavioral analysis across east-west and north-south network traffic, helping security teams identify unusual traffic patterns and investigate activity that may otherwise blend into normal network behavior. That doesn\u2019t replace a rehearsed DDoS incident response playbook or a trained response team. It gives the people running the next tabletop exercise additional network visibility to test against and gives the DDoS response team more context when an alert fires for real.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
Unlock Powerful Network Security with Fidelis NDR <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSee how Fidelis NDR boosts security with:<\/span><\/span>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tComprehensive Threat Detection & Analysis <\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tData Loss Prevention (DLP) & Email Security<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDeep Session Inspection & TLS Profiling<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDownload the Datasheet<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Testing a DDoS incident response playbook isn\u2019t complicated; it\u2019s just usually skipped. Set narrow objectives you can grade. Get legal, communications, and an executive into the room, not just the network team. Build the scenario around one real attack vector, volumetric, protocol, or application layer, instead of a vague premise. Let wrong answers surface instead of correcting them on the spot. Turn every gap into a named, dated fix. Repeat it at least once a year. None of this needs new budget or new tooling, just the plan getting tested by your own people before an actual attacker tests it for you.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Can our own team run this, or do we need an outside facilitator?<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Either works. Someone internal who knows the network setup can build a more realistic scenario, but they shouldn\u2019t also be answering the hard questions during the session, that\u2019s a conflict of interest. The facilitator\u2019s job is running the discussion, not solving it.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

\n
\n

What’s the difference between a tabletop exercise and a live DDoS simulation?<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
\n

A tabletop is discussion only, nobody touches a system and no traffic gets generated. A live simulation, sometimes called a functional exercise, sends real controlled test traffic at a system to check whether rate limiting or filtering actually holds under load. Start with the tabletop, it\u2019s cheaper and usually finds the same coordination gaps a live test would find anyway.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

\n
\n

How long does a DDoS tabletop exercise usually take?<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
\n

A focused DDoS tabletop can usually be completed in two to three hours: enough time to move through detection, escalation, containment, communication, and recovery without rushing the discussion. Longer sessions can be appropriate when the exercise involves more participants, multiple scenarios, or broader objectives.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

\n
\n

Why does legal need to sit through something this technical?<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Because a DDoS event that knocks out a critical service can trigger a notification requirement before the technical team has even finished diagnosing what\u2019s happening. If legal only gets pulled in during the real incident, time gets lost figuring out who drafts the customer notice and whether a regulator needs to hear about it. The tabletop is where that coordination gets worked out for free.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

\n
\n

What usually needs fixing after the first DDoS tabletop?<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Expect the first one to surface more problems than it solves. Common findings: nobody had clear standing authority to engage the mitigation vendor, contact lists were out of date, and the plan assumed a detection capability the monitoring stack didn\u2019t actually have. Fix these with named people and specific contacts instead of generic job titles, then retest a variation of the same scenario at the next session to confirm the fix held.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The post How to Test a DDoS Incident Response Playbook with Tabletop Exercises<\/a> appeared first on Fidelis Security<\/a>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Key Takeaways Use tabletop exercises to test DDoS response plans without generating attack traffic. Build scenarios around volumetric, protocol, and application-layer DDoS attacks.\u00a0 Set measurable objectives covering detection, mitigation, communication, and recovery. Include security, network, legal, communications, executive, and provider stakeholders.\u00a0 Let response gaps surface naturally instead of correcting participants during the exercise. Document every […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":9319,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9318","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9318"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9318"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9318\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/9319"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9318"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9318"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9318"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}