What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on IR-5 Detection and analysis - prioritize incidents?

Asset criticality or sensitivity tagging visible to responders; Documented prioritisation matrix combining severity and asset value; Triage records showing the priority assigned and why; Review of whether priority matched actual impact.

What is the most common gap auditors find on IR-5?

prioritisation on alert severity alone so a critical asset is treated like a test box

Azure Security Benchmark v3 (renamed Microsoft cloud security benchmark) · Incident Response

`IR-5` Detection and analysis - prioritize incidents

Give security operations the context to prioritise incidents, combining alert severity with the sensitivity of the affected asset as defined in the incident response plan.

Source: Azure Security Benchmark v3 (renamed Microsoft cloud security benchmark), IR-5. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open Azure Security Benchmark v3 (renamed Microsoft cloud security benchmark) in the compliance library.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Document repository

where the evidence lives

teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Triage records showing the priority assigned and why · Document repository
Review of whether priority matched actual impact · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Asset criticality or sensitivity tagging visible to responders · Document repository
Documented prioritisation matrix combining severity and asset value · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

prioritisation on alert severity alone so a critical asset is treated like a test box
criticality data exists in a register responders cannot see
matrix defined but not applied in practice

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

IR-4 Detection and analysis - investigate an incident · IR-6 Containment, eradication and recovery - automate the incident handling