A.5.24 Organizational
Information security incident management planning and preparation
Structured attributes from ISO/IEC 27002:2022 — control type · CIA properties · cybersecurity concept · operational capability · security domain. What do these mean?
Mapped NIST 800-53 r5 controls (12)
Our AI-authored reading (authority llm_unverified, under review) of how this ISO control and each NIST 800-53 control relate. Not an ISO or NIST product.
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial). gov = governs / implements (a mandate, not coverage).
Why these map — AI rationale (under review)
- IR-4mostlyaligns with — Both controls establish the core incident handling lifecycle—detection, analysis, containment, eradication, recovery, and post-incident review—while requiring defined roles, escalation paths, and coordination with internal and external parties.
- IR-8mostlyaligns with — Both require a documented incident response plan that addresses roles, responsibilities, communication procedures, and integration with continuity and crisis management activities.
- IR-2partialaligns with — Both emphasize training and competence requirements for personnel who will execute incident response procedures.
- IR-3partialaligns with — Both stress the need to test and exercise incident response capabilities to validate procedures and identify improvements.
- IR-5partialaligns with — Both require ongoing monitoring and tracking of incidents to support timely detection, classification, and management.
- IR-6partialaligns with — Both address the requirement to report incidents to appropriate internal and external stakeholders within defined time frames.
Aligned NIST CSF 2.0 outcomes (14)
NIST CSF 2.0 outcomes this ISO control aligns with — our AI-authored analysis (authority llm_unverified, under review).
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial). gov = governs / implements (a mandate, not coverage).
Why these map — AI rationale (under review)
- GV.RR-02mostlyaligns with — Both emphasize defining, communicating, and ensuring understanding of roles, responsibilities, and authorities for cybersecurity risk management activities, including incident handling.
- ID.IM-04mostlyaligns with — Both require the establishment, communication, and maintenance of incident response plans and related procedures that affect operations.
- RS.MA-01mostlyaligns with — Both require the organization to execute a documented incident response plan in coordination with relevant internal and external parties once an incident is declared.
- PR.AT-02partialaligns with — Both require providing specialized training and ongoing professional development to personnel who perform incident response duties.
- RS.AN-03partialaligns with — Both call for root-cause analysis to determine what occurred during an incident and why.
- RS.CO-03partialaligns with — Both require sharing incident-related information with designated internal and external stakeholders.
Related OWASP ASVS 5.0 requirements (11)
Application-security verification requirements (OWASP ASVS 5.0) this ISO control aligns with; links open the ASVS chapter. Our AI-authored analysis (authority llm_unverified, under review) — many ISO controls have no ASVS counterpart.
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial). gov = governs / implements (a mandate, not coverage).
Why these map — AI rationale (under review)
- V16.1.1mostlyaligns with — The ISO control's requirement to document logging activities, security events, and incident procedures directly supports the ASVS mandate for an inventory of logging performed at each application layer.
- V16.2.3partialaligns with — Defining which systems and services receive or store incident-related logs corresponds to the ISO directive that incident management activities are only logged to documented locations.
- V16.3.3partialaligns with — Establishing procedures to log attempts to bypass security controls and defined security events mirrors the ISO expectation that incident management procedures capture such events and bypass attempts.
- V16.3.4partialaligns with — The ISO control's emphasis on logging incident management activities and failures supports the ASVS requirement to log unexpected errors and security control failures such as backend TLS issues.
- V16.4.3partialaligns with — The ISO requirement to coordinate incident handling and communicate with internal and external parties aligns with the ASVS need to securely transmit logs to a separate system for analysis and escalation.
Related weaknesses / CWE (7)
Weakness classes this ISO control helps prevent or mitigate — our AI-authored analysis (authority llm_unverified, under review).
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial). gov = governs / implements (a mandate, not coverage).
Why these map — AI rationale (under review)
- CWE-200partialfinds — Formal evidence handling, controlled recovery, and post-incident communication procedures limit the window during which sensitive data could be inadvertently disclosed while responders restore systems.
- CWE-400partialfinds — Pre-agreed severity-based prioritization and resource allocation during incident triage reduce the likelihood that an attacker-induced resource exhaustion will overwhelm the organization before corrective action is taken.
- CWE-508partialfinds — Incident-management planning supports detection and response to non-replicating malware incidents.
- CWE-223nonenone — Incident-management planning assumes the availability of the data the weakness fails to capture.
- CWE-693nonenone — Requiring defined escalation paths, crisis activation criteria, and coordination procedures strengthens the overall protection mechanism so that a single control failure is less likely to leave the organization exposed.
- CWE-770nonenone — Documented incident response procedures that include activation of continuity plans and controlled recovery help ensure that resource consumption triggered by an incident is bounded and managed rather than left unbounded.
- CWE-778nonenone — Mandating systematic logging of incident activities and evidence handling ensures security-relevant events are recorded rather than omitted, directly reducing the chance that attacks go undetected due to missing audit trails.
Mitigated MITRE ATT&CK techniques (6)
Adversary techniques (MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise) this ISO control helps mitigate; links open attack.mitre.org. Our AI-authored analysis (authority llm_unverified, under review).
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial). gov = governs / implements (a mandate, not coverage).
Why these map — AI rationale (under review)
- T1486partialmitigates — Pre-established incident classification, response, and recovery procedures enable faster detection and containment of ransomware or other encryption-based impact activities.
- T1021nonemitigates — Incident response processes that include coordination, escalation, and logging of activities improve the organization's ability to detect and interrupt lateral movement once an incident is underway.
- T1059nonemitigates — Trained incident responders with documented procedures for monitoring, detection, and analysis are better positioned to identify and respond to adversary command-line or scripting activity during an incident.
- T1070nonemitigates — Documented incident response procedures and evidence handling requirements increase the likelihood that an adversary's attempts to delete or alter logs and artifacts will be detected and preserved for investigation.
- T1485nonemitigates — Having defined escalation paths, crisis management activation criteria, and recovery procedures reduces the time an adversary can sustain destructive actions before the organization responds and contains the incident.
- T1490nonemitigates — Incident management planning that includes continuity plan activation and controlled recovery limits the window in which an adversary can successfully inhibit system recovery mechanisms.
Prevented OWASP Web Top 10 (2025) risks (3)
OWASP Web Top 10 (2025) risk categories this ISO control helps prevent or mitigate — our AI-authored analysis (authority llm_unverified, under review).
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial). gov = governs / implements (a mandate, not coverage).
Why these map — AI rationale (under review)
- A02partialmitigates — Lessons-learned activities and subsequent control improvements reduce the recurrence of misconfigurations that were exploited or exposed during incidents.
- A09partialmitigates — Formal incident logging, root-cause analysis, and post-incident reporting procedures directly improve the organization's ability to capture, retain, and act on security-relevant events.
- A06nonemitigates — Post-mortem analysis and feedback into the design process help surface and correct insecure design assumptions that contributed to past incidents.
Control IDs, short titles and the structured attribute table (control type, CIA properties, cybersecurity-concept, operational capability, security domain) are facts from ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A / ISO/IEC 27002:2022. The full implementation guidance prose lives in ISO/IEC 27002:2022 — not reproduced here. Cross-walks to NIST 800-53, NIST CSF 2.0, OWASP ASVS, CWE, MITRE ATT&CK and OWASP Web Top 10 are our own AI-authored analysis (authority llm_unverified, under review), not an ISO, NIST, MITRE or OWASP product — how ours compare.