US cyber agency CISA had to build its incident playbook during the incident 16%

By Zack Whittaker47%

7/11/2026, 1:01:28 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Halo Effect, and Status Quo Bias, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 9.4% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 399 faulty-reasoning hits from 530 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.8% and a BS Rank of 16% (18,487 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.50% of the article peer group.

U.S. federal cybersecurity agency CISA said it did not have a prepared response plan for how it should handle a cybersecurity incident in May, after an investigative reporter notified the agency that a contractor had publicly exposed sensitive keys and credentials for accessing U.S. government systems. 
CISA, the Homeland Security unit tasked with defending federal networks and helping to safeguard critical infrastructure, revealed Friday in a post-mortem report that its staff “had to spend time building [a playbook] during the early stages of the incident.” 
The agency said it is important to prepare playbooks for “all anticipated needs” to ensure that organizations are ready to respond in the event of a security incident rather than scrambling to improvise one in real time. 
The agency did not say how long the missing playbook delayed CISA’s response, and a spokesperson did not immediately respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment. 
Independent cybersecurity journalist Brian Krebs reported in May that a security researcher with cyber firm GitGuardian alerted him to reams of exposed passwords stored in a publicly accessible GitHub repository, which an employee of a CISA contractor had uploaded. 
According to Krebs, the researcher tried to alert the contractor but didn’t hear back. 
Only after Krebs contacted CISA did the agency take the repository offline and revoke and replace all of the exposed credentials to prevent any potential future abuse. 
CISA said that no customer or mission data was exposed in the incident and thanked the researcher and reporter for their help. 
The agency said that its channels for allowing security researchers to notify CISA of potential incidents “were not well defined,” and that it has made changes to make it easier and faster for researchers to contact the agency. 
CISA has been without a permanent director since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term in January 2025. 
The agency has also been affected by cuts, furloughs, and layoffs affecting about a third of its workforce since Trump took office. 
CISA , cybersecurity , Security , us government 
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission . 
This doesn’t affect our editorial independence. 
Zack Whittaker is the security editor at TechCrunch. 
He also authors the weekly cybersecurity newsletter, this week in security . 
He can be reached via encrypted message at zackwhittaker.1337 on Signal. 
You can also contact him by email, or to verify outreach, at zack.whittaker@techcrunch.com . 
Last chance to save up to $190 on TechCrunch Founder Summit. 
Join 1,000+ founders and VCs at all stages for real-world scaling insights and connections that move the needle. 
Savings end June 26, 11:59 p.m. 
PT . 
Instagram users: Here’s how to stop Meta’s AI from using your photos 
Figma acquires team behind a vibe-coding app 
If you use Google, you’re training its AI. 
Here’s how to opt out. 
Reddit is using LLMs to solve a problem LLMs largely created 
Amazon will stop accepting new customers for Mechanical Turk 
5 desk gadgets that can make your workday better 
Almost 90 new unicorns have been minted so far this year  here they are 
Dominic-Madori Davis 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.2%Zack Whittaker: 5.3%TechCrunch: 3.0%Confirmation Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.3%TechCrunch: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Zack Whittaker: 4.1%TechCrunch: 3.5%Availability Heuristic2.8%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 1.3%TechCrunch: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.9%TechCrunch: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 1.0%TechCrunch: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 4.1%TechCrunch: 4.8%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Zack Whittaker: 1.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.2%This article: 7.0%Zack Whittaker: 1.2%TechCrunch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Zack Whittaker: 0.6%TechCrunch: 4.9%Optimism Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 1.2%TechCrunch: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Zack Whittaker: 13.2%TechCrunch: 5.0%Negativity Bias1.5%This article: 4.2%Zack Whittaker: 1.8%TechCrunch: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias4.2%This article: 3.6%Zack Whittaker: 0.6%TechCrunch: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error3.6%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Zack Whittaker: 1.5%TechCrunch: 3.5%Halo Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.1%Zack Whittaker: 1.5%TechCrunch: 2.3%Recency Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 1.1%Zack Whittaker: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.9%Zack Whittaker: 2.3%TechCrunch: 4.4%Appeal to Authority4.9%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.6%TechCrunch: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 6.5%TechCrunch: 6.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.4%Zack Whittaker: 0.6%TechCrunch: 1.1%Bandwagon3.4%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 5.1%TechCrunch: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.8%TechCrunch: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.1%Zack Whittaker: 5.2%TechCrunch: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.1%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 1.1%TechCrunch: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.8%TechCrunch: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.6%Zack Whittaker: 1.6%TechCrunch: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.6%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 2.1%TechCrunch: 2.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.9%Zack Whittaker: 1.9%TechCrunch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.9%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 3.4%TechCrunch: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 7.9%Zack Whittaker: 2.4%TechCrunch: 0.8%Indoctrination7.9%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.6%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Zack Whittaker: 3.7%TechCrunch: 4.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.4%

530 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers51%attributed speech262writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCISA • 46 words • 0.0% coverageCISA • 39 words • 0.0% coverageCISA • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Krebs • 39 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Krebs • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageCISA • 22 words • 0.0% coverageCISA • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageZack Whittaker • 8 words • 0.0% coverageZack Whittaker • 12 words • 0.0% coverageZack Whittaker • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageDominic-Madori Davis • 2 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

CISA

32%flagged-word coverage
182 attributed words68% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Indoctrination+18.4 ptsWriter: 1.9%CISA: 20.3%20.3%Attempt to Sell a Product -19.1 ptsWriter: 19.1%CISA: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.9 ptsWriter: 1.9%CISA: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.