IRO-09.1: Incident Response Capabilities Testing Coordination with Related Plans
Mechanisms exist to coordinate incident response testing with organizational elements responsible for related plans.
Renumbered: Formerly IRO-06.1 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, IRO-09.1 was Automated Tracking, Data Collection & Analysis. That control is now IRO-07.2.
Control Question: Does the organization coordinate incident response testing with organizational elements responsible for related plans?
General (13)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| GovRAMP | IR-03(02) |
| GovRAMP Moderate | IR-03(02) |
| GovRAMP High | IR-03(02) |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 5.29 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 5.29 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | IR-3(2) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | IR-03(02) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | IR-03(02) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | IR-03(02) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | IR-03(02) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | IR-03(02) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | IR-03(02) |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | RS.CO |
US (10)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | IR-3(2) |
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | RESPONSE-3j |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | IR-3(2) |
| USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 | II.C.21 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | IR-03(02) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | IR-03(02) |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | IR-3(CE-2) |
| USA Federal 33 CFR Part 101 Subpart F | 101.635(a)(1) |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.16(d)(1) |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | IR-03 (02) |
EMEA (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | op.cont.1 op.cont.2 |
APAC (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 11.16(b) A10-B14(f) |
| APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 | 7.3.3 7.3.3(a) 7.3.3(c) 7.3.3(f) 7.3.5(b) |
Americas (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 3.4.1 |
| Americas Canada OSFI Self-Assessment Guidance | 2.7.2 |
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
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). 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. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT and/or 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. ▪ On at least an annual basis, IT and/or cybersecurity personnel conduct tabletop exercises to validate disaster recovery and contingency plans, in conjunction with stakeholders and any required vendors.
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 coordinate incident response testing with organizational elements responsible for related plans.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Assessment Objectives
- IRO-09.1_A01 incident response testing is coordinated with organizational elements responsible for related plans.
Evidence Requirements
- E-IRO-04 IRP Testing
-
Documented evidence of an Incident Response Plan (IRP)-related testing activity.
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