Skip to main content

IRO-25: Embedded Technology Incidents

IRO 7 — High Respond

Mechanisms exist to handle failures and/or incidents with embedded technologies.

Control Question: Does the organization handle failures and/or incidents with embedded technologies?

US (1)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal DoW BaTB OT 2026 4

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

Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Incident response-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.

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).

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-25_A01 embedded technologies (e.g., firmware, microcontrollers, Operational Technology (OT), Internet of Things (IoT) and other purpose-built components) within organizational Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) are identified and included in the scope of incident response planning.
  2. IRO-25_A02 procedures exist for detecting, reporting and responding to failures and/or incidents involving embedded technologies, including cases where the embedded technology cannot be patched, isolated or forensically imaged by conventional means.
  3. IRO-25_A03 failures and/or incidents involving embedded technologies are reported to the organizational incident response capability within a defined time period.
  4. IRO-25_A04 failures and/or incidents involving embedded technologies are contained and recovered from, including coordination with the manufacturer or supplier where firmware or component replacement is required.
  5. IRO-25_A05 root causes of failures and/or incidents involving embedded technologies are analyzed and lessons learned are incorporated into incident response procedures.

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) includes IoT devices (e.g., cameras, smart devices)
  • Vendor support contacts documented

Small

  • Incident Response Plan (IRP) with embedded device scenarios
  • Vendor incident support agreements
  • Isolation procedures for IoT/OT devices

Medium

  • IRP playbooks for OT/IoT incidents
  • Defined roles for engineering and operations in incident response
  • Annual tabletop exercise including an embedded technology scenario

Large

  • Integrated IT/OT incident response program
  • OT incident detection platform (e.g., Claroty, Nozomi, Dragos)
  • Safety-aware containment procedures
  • OT-specific incident response retainer

Enterprise

  • Enterprise IT/OT converged incident response program aligned with NIST SP 800-82 and ISA/IEC 62443
  • OT security operations with dedicated detection (e.g., Dragos, Claroty, Nozomi)
  • Joint safety, engineering and security incident exercises

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.