Wire8 exists to help clients manage cyber risk in a practical, business-focused way.
Cyber threats are complex, so having a partner who’s in your corner makes all the difference.
I understand the pressure leaders face when making critical technology and cyber decisions, and the value of having a trusted partner to help.
I’ve walked in those shoes. I know that getting the right cyber initiatives approved can be difficult when budgets are tight, and that demonstrating progress can be just as challenging. I also understand the questions leaders need answered: What is the risk? What do we need to do about it? What will it cost? And how do we know we’re making progress?
My view is that trust is built on experience, not just theory. I’ve led a technology organisation as a CIO, carried responsibility as a Board Director and worked with organisations as a KPMG Partner. That experience helps me, and the Wire8 team, bridge the gap between a technical problem and a business risk, and explain what it means in terms that leaders can act on.
I started Wire8 to help organisations manage cyber risk in a practical, business-focused way. We work alongside our clients, helping them understand where they stand, make sensible decisions on what to do next and stay ahead of what’s coming.
Cyber threats are complex. Having someone genuinely in your corner who understands both the technology and the business can make a real difference.
That’s what Wire8 Cyber is all about.
-Mike Clarke
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mcclarke/
About us
The Audit, the Framework and the Unicorn
We see two very different ways organisations use cyber security frameworks.
Some organisations treat a framework a bit like an audit. You assess where you are, identify the gaps, fix what you can, produce the report and perhaps come back six or twelve months later.
Others treat it as their security baseline: which is the level they want to maintain and continually improve.
We all agree that CIS Controls constitute a Framework, but is that the case for the Essential Eight? Strictly speaking, ASD describes it as a prioritised cyber security baseline supported by a maturity model, rather than a comprehensive framework. We agree. But we see organisations using it in both of the ways described above.
If the baseline matters, it needs to be maintained.
Status should be regularly monitored and maintained as part of the ongoing management of cyber risk.
Why? Because neither your environment nor the threat landscape stands still. We weren’t talking about AI tools like Mythos a year ago.
In your environment, new systems and solutions are delivered, new threats like Shadow AI emerge users join and leave and new vulnerabilities are discovered. Something that was secure six months ago may no longer be secure today.
Microsoft’s monthly Patch Tuesday is a really good example. Between March and June 2026, Microsoft addressed more than 580 vulnerabilities across its products; an average of more than 145 a month.
Is there a unicorn out there that can say, “We’ve completed patching. We’re done”? Not likely. The following month, the cycle starts again.
The value of a cyber security baseline isn’t knowing where you stood on the day of the assessment. It’s knowing where you stand today and being able to see quickly when you’ve moved away from the baseline.
That’s the difference between treating cyber security as a periodic compliance exercise and treating it as an ongoing process of managing risk.
For us, the goal isn’t a report that says we had controls on this date. The goal is an organisation that knows where it stands today, and what needs attention next.