As cyber threats grow in sophistication and frequency, Managed Service Providers (MSPs) are under increasing pressure to mature their security posture. But true cybersecurity resilience isn’t about reacting to the latest zero-day—it’s about building intentional processes, aligning to trusted frameworks, and training teams to operate with clarity and consistency.
This post covers several key areas where MSPs can take immediate, meaningful action: strengthening incident response, understanding emerging threats like the latest Exchange zero day, and evolving toward a standardized cybersecurity model designed for the realities of the channel.
Elevating Incident Response: From Chaos to Structure
Many MSPs still rely on ad hoc incident response (IR) when things go wrong. This leads to confusion, missed indicators, and costly delays. A mature IR approach includes:
- Pre-defined playbooks that walk through containment, eradication, and recovery steps.
- Clear escalation paths so the right people are engaged at the right time.
- Regular tabletop exercises to stress test and refine processes.
- Tool alignment across internal teams and vendors to avoid blind spots.
Documented, repeatable IR procedures aren’t just for enterprise SOCs—they’re critical for MSPs operating in high-stakes client environments.
The Exchange Zero Day: A Case Study in Proactive Defense
A recent Microsoft Exchange zero day served as a wake-up call. This wasn’t a single vulnerability, but a chain of exploits allowing unauthenticated access and remote code execution—often before patches were released.
Lessons learned:
- Patching isn’t enough: Threat actors were exploiting the chain before patches dropped. Environments that only applied updates—without checking for compromise—could remain exposed.
- Indicators of compromise (IOCs) must be hunted proactively. YARA rules and detection scripts should be used across all Exchange-facing environments.
- Mass automated exploitation is no longer theoretical. Attackers are using nation-state tooling and automation at scale.
- Vendor and fourth-party risk must be assessed. Downstream exposure from third-party tools and services is a growing concern, as seen in prior incidents like SolarWinds.
MSPs should integrate threat hunting into their regular operations—not just when news breaks.
The MSP+ Cybersecurity Model
A growing segment of providers are moving beyond traditional MSP models into what’s becoming known as the MSP+ approach: a business that integrates cybersecurity as a foundational, not supplemental, part of service delivery.
This isn’t about becoming a full-blown MSSP. Instead, MSP+ organizations embed security at every level—toolsets, training, client onboarding, and ongoing operations—while staying focused on the SMB market they serve best.
The MSP+ model is defined by:
- Alignment to frameworks (like NIST CSF or CIS) tailored for the MSP and SMB use case.
- Intentional training across all roles, from frontline technicians to executive leadership.
- Clear client communication that sets expectations and articulates shared responsibility.
Why Frameworks Matter—and Which Ones to Use
Popular frameworks like NIST CSF and CIS Controls offer valuable guidance, but not all are MSP-friendly out of the box. Many providers struggle to operationalize them due to lack of context, tooling alignment, or scalable playbooks.
A purpose-built framework—sometimes referred to as the MSP+ Framework—combines elements of NIST, CIS, and other global standards (such as the Australian Essential Eight), but is contextualized for the channel.
Key components of a channel-aligned cybersecurity framework include:
- Good / Better / Best playbooks for common security functions like EDR, SIEM, MDR, vulnerability management, and MFA enforcement.
- Baseline controls that are both actionable and measurable.
- Role-based training paths—from Certified Fundamentals courses for entry-level staff to advanced education for vCISOs and security engineers.
MSPs that adopt a framework not only improve their posture but also gain a competitive edge in demonstrating maturity to prospects and partners.
SOC 2 and the Coming Wave of Compliance Pressure
As clients grow more security-conscious—especially those in regulated verticals—MSPs are seeing increased demand for compliance reporting and validation. SOC 2, while not required in all cases, is quickly becoming a gold standard.
However, achieving SOC 2 requires:
- Significant time and financial investment (often $25K+ and 6+ months).
- Organizational alignment around policy, access control, documentation, and change management.
- Dedicated internal champions to drive the initiative and maintain compliance over time.
Even if SOC 2 isn’t in scope today, MSPs should begin preparing for a future where clients ask for evidence of cybersecurity controls—and may choose providers based on those answers.
A Shared Framework to Avoid Regulatory Overreach
There’s a growing call across the MSP and vendor community for a shared, channel-specific cybersecurity framework—a baseline model that ensures providers meet minimum standards, communicate in a common language, and elevate the industry’s overall resilience.
This would serve the dual purpose of:
- Protecting SMB clients with consistent, auditable controls.
- Fending off regulatory pressure by proving the industry can self-govern.
Without alignment, external forces (insurance carriers, government agencies, compliance bodies) may step in to define the standards—and not always in ways that reflect the operational realities of small MSPs.
Now is the time for the channel to lead.
Conclusion: Maturity is Measured, Not Marketed
Cybersecurity maturity for MSPs is no longer optional. Whether it’s preparing for inevitable incidents, proactively defending against zero-day threats, aligning to a practical framework, or preparing for client compliance reviews, the steps are clear—and the time to act is now.
MSPs that take intentional steps to evolve into an MSP+ model will not only reduce risk and improve operations—they’ll build trust, increase profitability, and future-proof their business.