Skip to main content

IRO-09.2: Recurring Incident Analysis

IRO 5 — Medium Identify

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

  1. IRO-09.2_A01 incident response activities are periodically reviewed for the existence of recurring incidents.

Technology Recommendations

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.