IRO-07.2: Automated Tracking, Data Collection & Analysis
Automated mechanisms exist to assist in the tracking, collection and analysis of information from actual and potential cybersecurity and data protection incidents.
Renumbered: Formerly IRO-09.1 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization use automated mechanisms to assist in the tracking, collection and analysis of information from actual and potential cybersecurity and data protection incidents?
General (9)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| GovRAMP | IR-05(01) |
| GovRAMP High | IR-05(01) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | IR-5(1) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | IR-05(01) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | IR-05(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | IR-05(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | IR-05(01) |
| NIST 800-172 R3 | 03.06.04E |
| NIST 800-172A R3 | DS-A.03.06.04E[01] A.03.06.04E.ODP[01] DS-A.03.06.04E[02] A.03.06.04E.ODP[02] DS-A.03.06.04E[03] A.03.06.04E.ODP[03] |
US (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | IR-05(01) |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 — Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate 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. ▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to automatically assist in the tracking, collection and analysis of information from actual and potential cybersecurity and data protection incidents.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ 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. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
Assessment Objectives
- IRO-07.2_A01 automated mechanisms used to track incidents are defined.
- IRO-07.2_A02 automated mechanisms used to collect incident information are defined.
- IRO-07.2_A03 automated mechanisms used to analyze incident information are defined.
- IRO-07.2_A04 incidents are tracked using automated mechanisms.
- IRO-07.2_A05 incident information is collected using automated mechanisms.
- IRO-07.2_A06 incident information is analyzed using automated mechanisms.
Evidence Requirements
- E-IRO-03 Incident Tracking
-
Documented evidence of a centralized repository to track cybersecurity & data privacy incidents.
Incident Response
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Basic incident response plan
- Designate incident response contact
Small
- Documented incident response plan
- Incident log
- Designated IR team
Medium
- Formal incident response program
- IR playbooks
- Tabletop exercises
Large
- Enterprise incident response program
- 24/7 SOC monitoring
- SOAR platform
Enterprise
- Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
- IR retainer
- Threat hunting