A.5.25 Organizational
Assessment and decision on information security events
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 (7)
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 require a structured process for evaluating reported security events, determining their significance, and deciding on the appropriate response actions.
- AU-6partialaligns with — Assessment of security events in the ISO control aligns with NIST's requirement to review, analyze, and report on audit records to identify security-relevant events.
- IR-5partialaligns with — The ISO control's requirement to assess and decide on events supports the ongoing monitoring and tracking of incidents that NIST addresses through incident monitoring activities.
- SI-4partialaligns with — The ISO control's event assessment and decision process complements NIST's system monitoring requirements by providing the analysis step that follows detection of anomalies.
Aligned NIST CSF 2.0 outcomes (10)
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)
- RS.MA-02fullaligns with — Both require a structured assessment of reported events to validate and triage them before further incident handling.
- RS.MA-03fullaligns with — The ISO control’s categorization and prioritization scheme directly supports the CSF outcome of categorizing and prioritizing incidents.
- DE.AE-08mostlyaligns with — Both emphasize applying defined criteria to determine when an event should be declared an incident.
- RS.AN-08mostlyaligns with — The ISO requirement to assess consequences and decide on events aligns with estimating and validating an incident’s magnitude.
- RS.AN-03partialaligns with — Detailed recording of assessment results supports the CSF outcome of performing analysis to understand what occurred and why.
Related OWASP ASVS 5.0 requirements (5)
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).
Prevented OWASP Web Top 10 (2025) risks (1)
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)
- A09partialfinds — Formal assessment, categorization, and detailed recording of security events directly improve the quality and completeness of security logging and the subsequent alerting or escalation processes.
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.