EvidenceSheet

CC7.4 Responding to security incidents

Identified security incidents are handled through a defined response programme that understands, contains, remediates and communicates them as appropriate. Points of focus: roles for designing, running and maintaining the programme are assigned, including outside help; incidents are contained, their ongoing effects mitigated and their threats ended by closing vulnerabilities and removing unauthorised access; operations and data are restored to an interim workable state; communication protocols reach affected parties; the nature and severity of each incident drive the response time frame and containment approach; vulnerabilities are remediated and the remediation documented and communicated; the design of the response is evaluated periodically; incidents are reviewed for patterns and root causes that call for system change; and in privacy engagements, unauthorised use or disclosure is reported to data subjects, authorities and others as required, and those responsible are sanctioned where appropriate. The 2022 revision frames remediation as resolving the identified vulnerabilities and, for privacy engagements, adds applying defined breach response procedures once a privacy incident is confirmed.

Source: SOC 2 (2017 Trust Services Criteria), CC7.4. 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 SOC 2 (2017 Trust Services Criteria) in the compliance library.

These are criteria, not controls: you design controls that meet them, and which criteria are in scope follows the categories your report covers (Security always; Availability, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity and Privacy only if chosen). A Type 2 report tests that the controls operated across the period, so the evidence asked for is samples across that period, not one copy.

5
artefacts
1
held by a system
3
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

  • Incident tickets showing containment, eradication, recovery and communication · Ticketing / ITSM

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Tabletop exercise or incident simulation records · Document repository
  • Post-incident reviews and trend analysis · Document repository
  • Privacy breach response procedure and records of its use for confirmed privacy incidents (privacy engagements) · Data governance / DLP tooling

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Incident response plan with roles and contact lists · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 1 system-held artefact from your Ticketing / ITSM on a schedule; put the documents under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

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

CC7.3 Evaluating security events to identify incidents · CC7.5 Recovering from security incidents