What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on IR-8 Incident Response Plan?

SSP IR-8 statement summarising the incident response plan, its annual review and distribution to named roles; Incident response plan with review date and distribution record; Forensic toolkit readiness checklist and chain of custody templates; Regulatory notification procedure with jurisdiction specific timelines; Incident response plan with severity definitions and escalation paths; Incident response team roster with on call rotation.

What is the most common gap auditors find on IR-8?

Severity criteria inconsistent across teams leading to under reporting

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

`IR-8` Incident Response Plan

Develop and implement IRP; review and update annually; distribute.

Source: FedRAMP Moderate (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), IR-8. 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 Moderate (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

Policy repository / GRC workspace

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

SSP IR-8 statement summarising the incident response plan, its annual review and distribution to named roles · Identity provider / directory

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Incident response plan with review date and distribution record · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Forensic toolkit readiness checklist and chain of custody templates · Document repository
Regulatory notification procedure with jurisdiction specific timelines · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Incident response plan with severity definitions and escalation paths · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Incident response team roster with on call rotation · 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

Severity criteria inconsistent across teams leading to under reporting
Lessons learned captured but corrective actions not tracked to closure
Notification timelines miss jurisdictional regulatory deadlines

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-7(1) Incident Response Assistance | Automation Support for Availability of Information and Support (IR-7(1)) · IR-9 Information Spillage Response (IR-9)