Banks are investing in cybersecurity visibility. The harder question is whether every exposure can be traced to someone empowered to address it.
A bank discovers a vulnerability in a building controller connected to its branch network. Security identifies the risk, but facilities manages the equipment, an outside contractor maintains its firmware, and IT controls network access. Each team owns part of the problem. None can resolve it alone.
As financial institutions expand digital infrastructure and rely on more interconnected systems and service providers, these ownership gaps become increasingly consequential.
The blind spots between security and operations
Financial institutions rely on far more connected technology than conventional IT systems. Surveillance cameras, badge readers, environmental controls and vendor-managed appliances support daily operations, often under different management processes.
That fragmentation complicates cybersecurity asset management. An asset may appear in network monitoring but be missing from the configuration management database (CMDB). Another may have a technical record but no identified operational owner. The result can be a known vulnerability without a clear path to remediation.
The New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) 23 NYCRR Part 500 cybersecurity regulation illustrates how regulatory expectations intersect with this challenge. Its definition of information systems includes industrial controls, telephone switching and environmental controls. Section 500.13 requires covered entities to maintain asset inventory policies and procedures addressing ownership, location and support expiration.
Although NYDFS Part 500 applies to covered New York-regulated entities, the underlying challenge is relevant to financial services organizations more broadly. Asset visibility must connect to accountability.
From discovery to accountable action
Consider the vulnerable branch controller. Before recommending a fix, security needs to understand what it communicates with, whether its vulnerability is reachable and how restrictions might affect building operations.
Continuous, intelligence-driven assessment helps teams identify exposures across managed and unmanaged assets while reducing dependence on periodic scans that can leave gaps or disrupt sensitive systems.
Passive asset discovery and targeted, protocol-aware queries help identify specialized equipment and establish its characteristics. Vulnerability intelligence and communication mapping provide context for assessing exposure.
But prioritization alone cannot resolve the problem.
Findings must reach facilities, IT or service providers responsible for evaluating and implementing controls. Enriched asset information can support CMDB records and remediation workflows, connecting technical assessments to accountable teams.
For example, IT might restrict unnecessary network communications while facilities coordinates a vendor-approved firmware update. Security can verify implemented controls and continue tracking the remaining vulnerability.
The objective is a documented decision and an actionable plan, not another unresolved finding.
Better visibility changes the quality of decisions
Even organizations with extensive cybersecurity investments can underestimate their connected environments.
In an Armis from ServiceNow customer case study, a global financial services organization discovered approximately three to four times as many assets as its existing CMDB reflected during a two-week assessment. The expanded visibility helped identify security coverage gaps and improve vulnerability prioritization.
The example illustrates why accurate asset intelligence is foundational to effective risk management. Without reliable information about the environment, teams may struggle to establish whether controls reach the systems they intend to protect.
NYDFS Section 500.5 addresses risk-based vulnerability remediation, while Section 500.17 establishes documentation expectations for applicable annual cybersecurity certifications.
A defensible risk-management process should establish which assets are covered, who owns outstanding findings, what corrective actions were authorized and whether those actions were completed.
Closing the gap between knowing and doing
As financial institutions expand their digital infrastructure and third-party relationships, security teams need more than continuous vulnerability detection. They need a reliable way to connect exposures to the people responsible for resolving them, even when those assets sit outside traditional IT ownership.
That is where the combination of Armis Centrix™ and ServiceNow's security and operational workflows becomes valuable. Armis from ServiceNow provides continuous asset intelligence, vulnerability context and threat-informed prioritization. Connected ServiceNow workflows can then help route findings to responsible teams, coordinate remediation and maintain a record of decisions and progress.
For a bank, that could mean discovering an exposed building controller, identifying the team responsible for it, coordinating network restrictions with IT and facilities, and tracking the vendor-approved firmware update through completion. The result is a clearer path from a technical finding to an accountable risk-reduction decision.
This is also the practical value of Shift Zero, ServiceNow's prevention-first security approach. By connecting asset intelligence with coordinated action, organizations can work to reduce exposures earlier, before they become incidents.
For banking leaders, that means clearer ownership, more defensible remediation decisions and stronger evidence of progress against cyber risk.
Knowing what's exposed is the starting point. Knowing who can act, and proving that action happened, is what makes the difference.
