What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on IR-4(2) Incident Handling | Dynamic Reconfiguration?

Incident response plan section naming the components that can be dynamically reconfigured; Runbooks for isolation, rule changes or rerouting during an incident; Exercise records showing dynamic reconfiguration actually performed.

What is the most common gap auditors find on IR-4(2)?

Capability exists technically but is not written into the incident response plan

FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · IR - Incident Response

`IR-4(2)` Incident Handling | Dynamic Reconfiguration

Include FedRAMP-defined types of dynamic reconfiguration for FedRAMP-defined system components as part of the incident response capability.

Source: FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), IR-4(2). 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 FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) in the compliance library.

A FedRAMP baseline is a subset of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, enhancements included.

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

Exercise records showing dynamic reconfiguration actually performed · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Incident response plan section naming the components that can be dynamically reconfigured · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Runbooks for isolation, rule changes or rerouting during an incident · Document repository

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

Capability exists technically but is not written into the incident response plan
Never exercised, so the achievable change window is unknown

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(1) Automated Incident Handling Processes · IR-4(4) Information Correlation