EvidenceSheet

CC7.5 Recovering from security incidents

Recovery work after an identified security incident is identified, developed and carried out. Points of focus: the affected environment is returned to working order by rebuilding systems, updating software, patching and reconfiguring; the nature of the incident, recovery steps and prevention measures are communicated internally and externally as appropriate; the root cause is found; architecture or preventive and detective controls are changed to stop recurrence; lessons learned improve response and recovery procedures; and incident-recovery testing is performed periodically using scenarios weighted by how likely and how severe threats are, components that can impair availability, loss of key personnel, and revision of plans from the results.

Source: SOC 2 (2017 Trust Services Criteria), CC7.5. 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 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.

3
artefacts
1
held by a system
2
at each review
moderate
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

  • Post-incident reports with root cause and corrective actions · Policy repository / GRC workspace

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Evidence corrective actions were implemented · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Recovery test or exercise records and resulting plan updates · Backup / DR tooling

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

none for this control

First move

Start with the 1 of 3 artefacts that already live in a system (Policy repository / GRC workspace); keep the periodic reviews but log each one 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

CC7.4 Responding to security incidents · CC8.1 Managing changes to procedures, software, data and infrastructure