Skip to main content

IRO-22: Data Breach

IRO 8 — High Respond

Mechanisms exist to address data breaches, or other incidents involving the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive or regulated data, according to applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.

Renumbered: Formerly IRO-04.1 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization address data breaches, or other incidents involving the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive or regulated data, according to applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations?

General (13)
US (4)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 IR-8(1)
USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 IR-8(CE-1) IR-8(CE-1).a IR-8(CE-1).b IR-8(CE-1).c
USA Federal HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 § 164.404(a)(1) § 164.404(a)(2) § 164.404(c)(1)(A) § 164.404(c)(1)(B) § 164.404(c)(1)(C) § 164.404(c)(1)(D) § 164.404(c)(1)(E) § 164.404(c)(2) § 164.404(d)(1)(i) § 164.404(d)(1)(ii) § 164.404(d)(2) § 164.404(d)(2)(i) § 164.404(d)(2)(ii)(A) § 164.404(d)(2)(ii)(B) § 164.404(d)(3) § 164.406(a) § 164.406(b) § 164.406(c) § 164.410(c)(1)
USA Montana CDPA 2025 30-14-2813(1)(b)
EMEA (4)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2026 SIM-02.02B
EMEA Germany FDPA 2017 3.4.65(1) 3.4.65(2)
EMEA EU GDPR 2016 Article 33.1
EMEA Saudi Arabia PDPL Article 20.1 Article 20.2
APAC (4)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2026 ISM-0133
APAC India DPDPA 2023 8(6)
APAC South Korea PIPA 2011 IV.34(2)
APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 12.9(b) A5-B5(d)
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Bahamas DPA 2003 V.48(1)

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.

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 address data breaches, or other incidents involving the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive or regulated data, according to applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.

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

  1. IRO-22_A01 the incident response plan for breaches involving Personal Data (PD) includes a process to determine if notice to individuals or other organizations, including oversight organizations, is needed.
  2. IRO-22_A02 the incident response plan for breaches involving Personal Data (PD) includes an assessment process to determine the extent of the harm, embarrassment, inconvenience or unfairness to affected individuals and any mechanisms to mitigate such harms.
  3. IRO-22_A03 the incident response plan for breaches involving Personal Data (PD) includes the identification of applicable privacy requirements.

Evidence Requirements

E-IRO-01 Incident Response Plan (IRP)

Documented evidence of a Incident Response Plan (IRP). This is program-level documentation in the form of a runbook, playbook or a similar format provides guidance on organizational practices that support existing policies and standards.

Incident Response

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Incident Response Plan (IRP)

Small

  • Incident Response Plan (IRP)

Medium

  • Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)

Large

  • Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)

Enterprise

  • Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)

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.