ITM is an open framework - Submit your contributions now.

Insider Threat Matrix™

  • ID: PV058
  • Created: 28th April 2025
  • Updated: 28th April 2025
  • Contributor: The ITM Team

Consistent Enforcement of Minor Violations

Establish and maintain processes where all policy violations, including those perceived as minor or low-impact, are addressed consistently, proportionately, and promptly. By reinforcing that even small infractions matter, organizations deter boundary testing behaviors and reduce the risk of escalation into more serious incidents.

 

Implementation Approaches

  • Develop clear disciplinary guidelines that outline expected consequences for different categories of violations, ensuring minor infractions are not overlooked.
  • Empower first-line supervisors and managers with authority and tools to address minor violations at the earliest opportunity through corrective conversations, formal warnings, or minor sanctions as appropriate.
  • Track policy violations centrally, including minor incidents, to identify repeat offenders or emerging behavioral patterns across time.
  • Communicate the rationale for enforcement to the workforce, framing minor violation enforcement as a measure to protect operational integrity rather than bureaucratic punishment.
  • Conduct periodic reviews of enforcement actions to ensure consistency across departments, teams, and levels of seniority, minimizing perceptions of favoritism or uneven discipline.

 

Operational Principles

  • Proportionality: Responses to minor violations should be appropriate to the severity but still reinforce the boundary.
  • Visibility: Enforcement actions should be visible enough to deter others, without unnecessarily shaming or alienating individuals.
  • Predictability: Personnel should understand that violations will predictably result in consequences, eliminating ambiguity or assumptions of tolerance.
  • Escalation Readiness: Organizations should be prepared to escalate interventions for individuals who demonstrate patterns of repeated minor violations.

Sections

ID Name Description
MT022Boundary Testing

The subject deliberately pushes or tests organizational policies, rules, or controls to assess tolerance levels, detect oversight gaps, or gain a sense of impunity. While initial actions may appear minor or exploratory, boundary testing serves as a psychological and operational precursor to more serious misconduct.

 

Characteristics

  • Motivated by curiosity, challenge-seeking, or early-stage dissatisfaction.
  • Actions often start small: minor policy violations, unauthorized accesses, or circumvention of procedures.
  • Rationalizations include beliefs that policies are overly rigid, outdated, or unfair.
  • Boundary testing behavior may escalate if it is unchallenged, normalized, or inadvertently rewarded.
  • Subjects often seek to gauge the likelihood and severity of consequences before considering larger or riskier actions.
  • Testing may be isolated or gradually evolve into opportunism, retaliation, or deliberate harm.

 

Example Scenario

A subject repeatedly circumvents minor IT security controls (e.g., bypassing content filters, using personal devices against policy) without immediate consequences. Encouraged by the lack of enforcement, the subject later undertakes unauthorized data transfers, rationalizing the behavior based on perceived inefficiencies and low risk of detection.

MT015.001Opportunism

The subject exploits circumstances for personal gain, convenience, or advantage, often without premeditation or major malicious intent. Opportunistic acts typically arise from perceived gaps in oversight, immediate personal needs, or desires, rather than long-term ideological, financial, or revenge-driven motivations.

 

Characteristics

  • Motivated by immediate self-interest rather than deep-seated grievance or ideology.
  • May rationalize actions as minor, justified, or harmless ("no one will notice," "this helps everyone," "it's not a big deal").
  • Often triggered by environmental factors such as poor oversight, operational stress, or unmet personal needs.
  • May escalate over time if not detected and corrected early.
  • Subjects often do not view themselves as "threat actors" and may retain a positive view of their organization.
  •  

Example Scenario

Senior enlisted personnel on a U.S. Navy warship collaborated to procure and install unauthorized satellite internet equipment (Starlink) to improve their onboard quality of life. Acting without command approval, they circumvented Navy IT security protocols, introducing significant operational security (OPSEC) risks. Their motive was personal convenience rather than espionage, sabotage, or financial gain.