Skip to main content

IRO-10.3: Vulnerabilities Related To Incidents

IRO 8 — High Respond

Mechanisms exist to report system vulnerabilities associated with reported cybersecurity and data protection incidents to organization-defined personnel or roles.

Control Question: Does the organization report system vulnerabilities associated with reported cybersecurity and data protection incidents to organization-defined personnel or roles?

General (8)
Framework Mapping Values
CIS CSC 8.1 17.2
CIS CSC 8.1 IG1 17.2
CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 17.2
CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 17.2
ISO 27002 2022 8.8
NIST 800-53 R4 IR-6(2)
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) IR-6(2)
NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) IR-6(2)
US (1)
Framework Mapping Values
US IRS 1075 IR-6(2)
EMEA (1)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2020 PSS-02

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to report system vulnerabilities associated with reported cybersecurity and data protection incidents to organization-defined personnel or roles.

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:
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 protection 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 protection 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).
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 report system vulnerabilities associated with reported cybersecurity and data protection incidents to organization-defined personnel or roles.

Assessment Objectives

  1. IRO-10.3_A01 personnel or roles to whom system vulnerabilities associated with reported incidents are reported to is/are defined.
  2. IRO-10.3_A02 system vulnerabilities associated with reported incidents are reported to personnel or roles.

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.