How resilient is your network against today's threat landscape — signalling protocol attacks, AI-weaponised social engineering, ransomware, inter-roaming exploits, and 5G-specific vulnerabilities? This assessment benchmarks your security posture across five dimensions: threat awareness, network architecture, detection and response, AI and automation, and governance.
5 sections · 18 questions
~10 minutes
Personalised results via email
Telco-specific scoring
Who is completing this assessment?
Please use your work email address.
Loading your assessment…
Retrieving your saved security maturity report. This will only take a moment.
Assessment progress
Threat Awareness
Network Architecture
Detection & Response
AI & Automation
Governance
Section 01 of 05 · Threat Exposure & Awareness
Do you know what is specifically targeting your network?
Telecom networks face a categorically different threat landscape from enterprise IT. Signalling protocol attacks, inter-roaming exploits, and AI-enhanced social engineering are not variants of generic cyber threats — they are telecom-specific attack classes requiring specific awareness, threat models, and controls. Operators who treat network security as generic IT security are systematically underprotected against the threats most likely to cause operational harm.
Question 1 of 3
How does your organisation classify telecom network security relative to your broader IT security programme?
This question is about intent and operational structure, not just which tools you have deployed.
Question 2 of 3
Which telecom-specific attack categories are actively monitored and included in your threat model?
Select the option that most accurately reflects your current operational monitoring — not aspirational coverage.
Question 3 of 3
How frequently does your organisation receive and operationally act on telecom-specific threat intelligence — covering signalling exploits, roaming attack patterns, and adversarial use of AI against telecom targets?
Section 1 of 5
Section 02 of 05 · Network Architecture & Protocol Security
Is your network architecture creating structural vulnerabilities?
Security posture is determined first by architecture. SS7 was designed in 1975 when networks were state-owned and access was physically restricted — it has no authentication for incoming messages. Networks that retain legacy signalling infrastructure, lack enforced segmentation between IT and network functions, or leave roaming interfaces unprotected carry vulnerabilities that application-layer controls cannot fully compensate for.
Question 1 of 4
How would you characterise your current signalling infrastructure and the protocols actively in use across your network?
Select the option that best reflects your current operational state, not your target architecture.
Question 2 of 4
What controls are deployed on your SS7, Diameter, and GTP roaming interfaces to detect and block malicious signalling messages?
Signalling firewalls are the baseline control for roaming interface protection.
Question 3 of 4
Is your IT infrastructure — OSS/BSS, billing systems, network management — separated from your core network functions at the architecture level?
Architecture-level separation means independent infrastructure and enforced access control boundaries — not just firewall rules between shared systems.
Question 4 of 4
How does your organisation govern security obligations across your vendor and third-party ecosystem — network function vendors, cloud platform providers, system integrators, and managed service partners?
5G networks are software-defined and multi-vendor. Every vendor with access to network function code, configuration, or management interfaces is a potential attack surface.
Section 03 of 05 · Detection & Response Capability
Can you find threats before they find you?
Reactive security — IDS/IPS and signature-based detection — is necessary but insufficient against adversaries who blend malicious traffic with legitimate network behaviour. The average dwell time in organisations without proactive detection is measured in weeks to months. Telecom networks that lack proactive anomaly detection or unified visibility across IT and network function telemetry are giving sophisticated adversaries the time they need to establish persistent access.
Question 1 of 4
How would you characterise your SOC’s current threat detection approach across your network — RAN, core, OSS/BSS, and roaming interfaces?
Consider both coverage breadth and whether detection is signature-based or behaviourally driven.
Question 2 of 4
Does your SOC have unified visibility across both IT systems (OSS/BSS, management) and network functions (core, RAN, signalling) in a single correlated platform?
Siloed visibility — separate tools for IT and network telemetry — is one of the most cited gaps in telecom SOC operations and the reason correlated cross-domain attacks go undetected.
Question 3 of 4
How is privileged access to your network management systems — core network configuration, RAN management, OSS/BSS administration, and roaming infrastructure — controlled, monitored, and audited?
Privileged access to network management is the highest-value target for adversaries seeking persistent access. Admin-level credentials provide the ability to export configurations, intercept traffic, and insert backdoors through legitimate management channels.
Question 4 of 4
Does your organisation have tested ransomware resilience capability specifically for network infrastructure — including offline backups of network function configurations, segmentation controls to contain spread, and rehearsed recovery procedures?
Two-thirds of surveyed operators cited ransomware as an area needing substantial security improvement. Generic IT backup and recovery procedures are not designed for the failure modes of network function ransomware.
Section 04 of 05 · AI & Automation in Security Operations
Are you ready for a threat landscape where AI is both weapon and shield?
Over 65% of surveyed telecom operators are already using or piloting generative AI in their security operations. In parallel, adversaries are weaponising the same technology — AI-generated social engineering, deepfakes, LLM-assisted malicious code, and automated reconnaissance are operational against telecom targets today. Operators who adopt AI defensively earliest gain a compounding capability advantage. Those who wait face an adversarial AI gap that becomes progressively harder to close reactively.
Question 1 of 3
What is the current state of AI or machine learning adoption in your security operations centre?
Be specific about operational deployment — not vendor roadmap features or research interest.
Question 2 of 3
Does your organisation have specific detection and response capability for AI-enhanced attacks — including deepfake-based social engineering, AI-generated phishing, and LLM-assisted reconnaissance targeting your team or network?
Question 3 of 3
To what extent has automation reduced reliance on manual workflows in your security operations — specifically for alert triage, incident response initiation, and playbook execution?
Section 05 of 05 · Governance, Compliance & Collaboration
Is your governance framework keeping pace with regulation and the evolving threat?
NIS2 in Europe, the UK Telecommunications Security Act, 3GPP security standards, and the MITRE FiGHT 5G threat framework are actively shaping compliance and operational security requirements. Operators that governed adequately for 4G infrastructure may face material gaps as they deploy 5G and embed AI into operations. Industry threat intelligence sharing is increasingly the difference between detecting an attack campaign early — and discovering it months after it began.
Question 1 of 4
How is your organisation aligned with the telecom-specific regulatory and standards frameworks applicable to your operating environment?
Question 2 of 4
Does your organisation use the MITRE FiGHT framework — the 5G-specific adversary tactics and techniques knowledge base — to assess and improve your 5G network security posture?
MITRE FiGHT (5G Hierarchy of Threats) maps adversary tactics directly to 5G network functions and interfaces. It is the telecom-specific equivalent of MITRE ATT&CK for enterprise IT.
Question 3 of 4
Does your organisation participate in industry threat intelligence sharing — with other operators, sector ISACs, or regulatory bodies — to improve collective awareness of telecom-specific attack campaigns?
Question 4 of 4
Does your organisation have formal board-level accountability for cybersecurity — including named executive ownership of security risk, regular board reporting on material threats and compliance status, and escalation paths for security incidents that require strategic decisions?
NIS2 and the UK Telecommunications Security Act explicitly reference board-level accountability. Security governance that does not reach the board cannot drive the investment decisions required to close material gaps.
Your personalised security report is ready.
Enter your details below to access your full Telco Network Security Maturity Assessment — including your maturity tier, section-by-section gap analysis, prioritised recommendations, and a PDF summary to share with your team.
↓ Complete the form below to access your results
📬
Check your inbox
We've sent your results link to . Click the link in the email to view your full security report.
Can't find the email? Check your spam or junk folder.
The email comes from sales@tecknexus.com with subject line "Your Telco Network Security Assessment Results".
Telco Network Security Assessment · Results
Your Security Maturity Report
⚠ Threat Exposure Profile
Recommended Action Sequence
Next Step · TeckNexus Intelligence
Get a Tailored Telco Security Architecture Assessment
Connect with a specialist to map your specific gaps to proven solutions — across signalling security, unified SOC architecture, AI-driven threat detection, and regulatory alignment.
Structured assessment mapped to your specific network architecture and threat profile
Aligned to NIS2, Telecommunications Security Act, 3GPP standards, and MITRE FiGHT
Covering signalling layer, SOC unification, AI adoption, and incident response maturity
Neutral host, network slicing, and autonomous ground vehicles look like three unrelated topics — but they share the same hidden security risk. See what 100 airport deployments reveal about securing the components with the broadest reach across the network....
Airports are deploying AI surveillance, biometrics, and autonomous vehicles faster than most networks can secure them. See what 100 real-world airport deployments reveal about the airside/landside security gap — and the 4-layer framework built to close it....
Scroll to Top
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OkPrivacy policy
