A.5.27 Organizational
Learning from information security incidents
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 (10)
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 using incident data to refine response procedures and reduce recurrence through root-cause analysis and control updates.
- IR-8mostlyaligns with — Both controls mandate updating the incident response plan based on lessons learned from actual incidents.
- AT-2partialaligns with — Both controls require incorporating real incident examples into awareness training to reduce future occurrences.
- IR-5partialaligns with — Both controls emphasize ongoing tracking of incident types and volumes to inform security improvements.
- RA-3partialaligns with — Both controls require feeding incident-derived information into the risk assessment process to adjust likelihood or impact values.
Aligned NIST CSF 2.0 outcomes (13)
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)
- ID.IM-01mostlyaligns with — Lessons extracted from incident evaluations are fed back into security improvements, directly supporting the CSF outcome of identifying enhancements from evaluations.
- ID.IM-03mostlyaligns with — Quantifying incident types, volumes, and costs from operational execution provides the data needed to spot improvements in day-to-day processes and procedures.
- ID.RA-05mostlyaligns with — Recurring or serious incidents and their root causes are used to refresh the risk assessment and prioritize additional controls, matching the CSF intent to combine threats, vulnerabilities, and impacts for risk-informed decisions.
- ID.IM-02partialaligns with — Incident-derived insights can be incorporated into future security tests and exercises, though the control itself does not mandate test-based identification of improvements.
- PR.AT-01partialaligns with — Real incident examples are leveraged to raise general personnel awareness and improve future avoidance and response behaviors.
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).
Mitigated MITRE ATT&CK techniques (5)
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)
- T1078partialmitigates — Quantifying incidents involving compromised credentials highlights weak account hygiene, driving risk-treatment actions that shrink the pool of usable valid accounts.
- T1190partialmitigates — Analysis of successful exploits against public-facing applications informs patching priorities and configuration hardening, lowering the likelihood of repeat exploitation.
- T1566partialmitigates — Post-incident analysis of phishing events feeds targeted awareness updates that reduce the probability of users executing malicious attachments or links in subsequent campaigns.
- T1110nonemitigates — Tracking brute-force or credential-stuffing incidents reveals patterns that justify additional controls such as account lockouts or MFA, directly reducing the technique’s effectiveness.
- T1204nonemitigates — Lessons-learned reviews identify recurring user-execution vectors, prompting updated training and procedural changes that lower the success rate of malicious files or links.
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)
- A09partialfinds — Quantifying and analysing incident data feeds the security-logging and alerting process, enabling earlier detection and faster response to recurring attack patterns.
- A02nonemitigates — Root-cause analysis of incidents often reveals misconfigurations, so the control drives corrective hardening that reduces the same class of configuration-driven exposures.
- A06nonemitigates — Lessons from past incidents are fed back into the risk assessment, prompting design changes that eliminate the insecure patterns that allowed the 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.