IRO-09.2: Recurring Incident Analysis
Mechanisms exist to periodically review incident response activities for the existence of recurring incidents.
Control Question: Does the organization periodically review incident response activities for the existence of recurring incidents?
EMEA (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex | 3.4.2(b) |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to periodically review incident response activities for the existence of recurring incidents.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to periodically review incident response activities for the existence of recurring incidents.
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:
- Administrative processes and technologies exist to document, manage and report on actual and potential cybersecurity and data privacy incidents.
- Administrative processes and technologies exist to maintain incident response contacts with applicable regulatory and law enforcement agencies.
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 report incidents both internally to organizational incident response personnel (within defined time-periods) and externally to governmental authorities and affected parties, as necessary.
- Administrative processes and technologies exist to maintain incident response contacts with applicable regulatory and law enforcement agencies.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
See C|P-CMM3. There are no defined C|P-CMM4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to periodically review incident response activities for the existence of recurring incidents.
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 periodically review incident response activities for the existence of recurring incidents.
Assessment Objectives
- IRO-09.2_A01 incident response activities are periodically reviewed for the existence of recurring incidents.