IRO-06: Incident Response Testing
Mechanisms exist to formally test incident response capabilities through realistic exercises to determine the operational effectiveness of those capabilities.
Control Question: Does the organization formally test incident response capabilities through realistic exercises to determine the operational effectiveness of those capabilities?
General (32)
US (20)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US C2M2 2.1 | RESPONSE-3.G.MIL2 RESPONSE-3.H.MIL2 RESPONSE-3.K.MIL3 |
| US CISA CPG 2022 | 2.S |
| US CJIS Security Policy 5.9.3 (source) | IR-3 |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 2 (source) | IR.L2-3.6.3 |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 3 (source) | IR.L2-3.6.3 |
| US CMS MARS-E 2.0 | IR-3 |
| US DHS CISA TIC 3.0 | 3.UNL.STEXE |
| US FedRAMP R4 | IR-3 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | IR-3 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | IR-3 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | IR-3 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) | IR-3 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | IR-3 |
| US IRS 1075 | IR-3 |
| US NERC CIP 2024 (source) | CIP-008-6 2.1 CIP-008-6 3.1 |
| US NISPOM 2020 | 8-104 |
| US - CA CCPA 2025 | 7123(c)(17)(B)(ii) |
| US - NY DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.16(d)(1) |
| US - TX DIR Control Standards 2.0 | IR-3 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | IR-3 |
EMEA (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex | 3.5.5 |
| EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 | 24.10 24.11 24.12 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 | 2-12-2-7 |
| EMEA UK CAF 4.0 | D1.c |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 | 4103 4105 |
APAC (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS234 | 26 |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF | DE.DP.S2 GV.RM.S3 |
Americas (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada CSAG | 2.8 |
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 | 2.7.2 |
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 | 03.06.03 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to formally test incident response capabilities through realistic exercises to determine the operational effectiveness of those capabilities.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
Incident Response (IRO) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- IT personnel use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
- Incident response operations are decentralized.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Incident Response (IRO) efforts are requirements-driven and governed at a local/regional level, but are not consistent across the organization. CMM Level 2 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Identify cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for incident response operations. o Implement and maintain an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
- Incident response operations are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
- IT/cybersecurity personnel:
- Incident responders are proficient on their specific IRP role(s) and responsibilities through recurring training events (e.g., annual rock drill).
- IT/cybersecurity personnel update the IRP, based on lessons learned from incidents / exercises.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Incident Response (IR) processes are standardized across the organization and centrally managed, where technically feasible, to ensure consistency. CMM Level 3 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- An Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT), or similar function, exists to form an on-demand, scalable and integrated team of formally-assigned cybersecurity, IT, data privacy and business function representatives that can perform coordinated incident response.
- The ISIRT, or similar function, develops and maintains a documented, program-level Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP) that provides operational and tactical-level guidance for cybersecurity and data privacy response operations.
- A Security Operations Center (SOC), or similar function, facilitates incident management operations that includes preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
- Business Process Owners (BPOs), in conjunction with the SOC and ISIRT functions, develop and maintain a documented Incident Response Plan (IRP) specific to the business process / business unit but inclusive of the organization's larger approach to incident response operations.
- An IT Asset Management (ITAM) function, or similar function, categorizes endpoint devices according to the data the asset stores, transmits and/ or processes and provides that information to the SOC for Incident Response Operations (IRO).
- Administrative processes and technologies exist to formally test incident response capabilities through realistic exercises to determine the operational effectiveness of those capabilities.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IR) is metrics driven and provides sufficient management insight (based on a quantitative understanding of process of process capabilities) to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and identify areas for improvement. In addition to CMM Level 3 criteria, CMM Level 4 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
- Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
- Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
- Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
- Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
- Both business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
See C|P-CMM4. There are no defined C|P-CMM5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to formally test incident response capabilities through realistic exercises to determine the operational effectiveness of those capabilities.
Assessment Objectives
- IRO-06_A01 the frequency at which to test the effectiveness of the incident response capability for the system is defined.
- IRO-06_A02 tests used to test the effectiveness of the incident response capability for the system are defined.
- IRO-06_A03 the incident response capability is tested.
- IRO-06_A04 the effectiveness of the incident response capability is tested per an organization-defined frequency.
- IRO-06_A05 a frequency at which to test intrusion-monitoring tools and mechanisms is defined.
- IRO-06_A06 intrusion-monitoring tools and mechanisms are tested frequently.
- IRO-06_A07 the effectiveness of the incident response capability is tested <A.03.06.03.ODP[01]: frequency>.
Evidence Requirements
- E-IRO-04 IRP Testing
-
Documented evidence of an Incident Response Plan (IRP)-related testing activity.
Incident Response
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- "Table Top" incident response exercises (rock drills)
Small
- "Table Top" incident response exercises (rock drills)
Medium
- "Table Top" incident response exercises (rock drills)
- "Red team vs blue team" exercises
- EICAR test file antimalware detection and response exercises
Large
- "Table Top" incident response exercises (rock drills)
- "Red team vs blue team" exercises
- EICAR test file antimalware detection and response exercises
Enterprise
- "Table Top" incident response exercises (rock drills)
- "Red team vs blue team" exercises
- EICAR test file antimalware detection and response exercises