Practical toolGlobalISO/IEC 27005

ISO/IEC 27005 Risk Register Workflow

ISO/IEC 27001 requires documented risk-assessment and treatment results, but it does not require a document named "risk register." Use a register as the controlled index that connects each risk to those required records.

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 guides the lifecycle and record content. The register can be a system, database, or document if it preserves traceability, history, ownership, and access control.

Back to main artifact Review sources

Author

Sorena AI

Published

May 9, 2026

Updated

Jul 25, 2026

Sections

Structured answer sets in this page tree.

Primary sources

Cited legal and guidance references.

Publication metadata

Sorena AI

Published May 9, 2026

Updated Jul 25, 2026

Overview

Use the risk register as a controlled index that links to assessment and treatment evidence. Give each scenario a stable identifier and connect it to scope, owner, criteria version, consequence, likelihood, risk level, treatment, necessary controls, residual-risk decision, monitoring, and change history. A is the person or entity with the accountability and authority to manage the risk, not merely the person who updates the row or operates a control. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires documented assessment and treatment results but does not prescribe a register format or even the name "risk register."

Section 1

How does a risk register support ISO/IEC 27005?

A register makes the ISO/IEC 27005 lifecycle navigable. It should show the current decision and link to the evidence that produced it, while preserving earlier versions. It can also support planned-interval and event-driven reassessment, provided the workflow does not mistake a row, score, or status for proof that the underlying process occurred.

ISO/IEC 27005 is guidance and ISO/IEC 27001 contains the certifiable ISMS requirements. Neither standard prescribes a universal register tool, column set, risk taxonomy, or review deadline. The organization chooses the record design, but it must still retain the required assessment and treatment processes and results.

Coverage: collectively include the information security risks relevant to the ISMS scope, whether assessments originate in projects, incidents, vulnerability management, suppliers, or other processes.
Ownership: assign a person or entity with both accountability and authority to manage each risk; a data-entry owner or control operator is not automatically the .
Traceability: connect the entry to the assessment method, criteria version, source evidence, treatment plan, approval, residual-risk acceptance, and monitoring record.

Sources for this answer

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 standard page

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 covers risk identification, ownership, assessment, treatment, documented information, monitoring, and review but does not prescribe a risk-register artifact.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 standard page

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 clauses 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 8.2, and 8.3 require retained documented information about assessment and treatment processes and results, without prescribing a register format.

Section 2

Which fields make a risk register reviewable?

For each entry, record a stable identifier; status; scope; scenario and affected objectives; risk sources, events, assets, threats, and vulnerabilities where relevant; owner; assessment date; method and criteria version; existing controls and effectiveness; consequence; likelihood; level; evaluation result; treatment priority; and rationale.

Use status values that describe a verified decision stage, such as intake, scope validation, assessment, treatment planning, implementation, residual assessment, accepted with conditions, monitoring, or superseded. Define entry and exit evidence for each status. A status change should point to the assessment, approval, test, or decision that authorized it.

Treatment fields: selected option, necessary controls, treatment-plan reference, accountable and responsible people, milestones, resources, dependencies, implementation status, measures, and evidence links.
Decision fields: forecast or measured residual risk, criteria result, risk-owner approval, acceptance authority, conditions, expiry or review date, monitoring indicators, and exception rationale.
Control fields: version, created and changed dates, change reason, source record, confidentiality or access classification, and links to superseded entries rather than silent overwriting.

Sources for this answer

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 standard page

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 clauses 7, 8.6, and 10.4 identify assessment results, treatment-plan content, ownership, decisions, rationale, and documented evidence relevant to register fields.

Recommended next step

Maintain the risk register as a controlled index

Assign record owners, link assessment and treatment evidence, preserve decision history, and set review triggers.

Assessment workflow

Track risk records and reviews

Assign record updates, request supporting evidence, and schedule risk review checkpoints.

Explore next step

Talk to Sorena

Talk through implementation

Review your current scope, evidence gaps, and next implementation steps.

Explore next step

Section 3

How should the risk-register workflow operate?

At intake, record the source and describe the sequence from cause or event to unwanted consequence. Search for related entries, but merge only when the scenarios can share one assessment and treatment decision. Validate scope and assign an authorized before moving the entry into assessment.

Keep scenarios separate when they need different controls. ISO/IEC 27005 uses flooding, fire, power spikes, and vandalism affecting a data centre as examples: the exposures may be combined for corporate reporting, but treatment still needs separate scenario records because the controls differ.

Intake and validate: the reporter or analyst records the source, scenario, scope, related records, confidentiality marking, and supporting evidence; the process owner validates whether the risk belongs in the ISMS.
Assign and assess: an authorized is named; the assessor identifies the scenario, analyses consequence and likelihood with current evidence, determines the level, compares it with approved criteria, and records treatment priority and uncertainty.
Treat or accept: the selects or approves the option, links necessary controls and the treatment plan, and routes any exception to the required acceptance authority.
Verify and decide: implementation owners attach delivery and effectiveness evidence; the assessor updates residual consequence and likelihood; the authorized owner records acceptance, further treatment, or escalation with conditions and an expiry or review date.
Monitor or supersede: accepted and low risks remain under review; reassessment starts when relevant factors change; an entry is closed only when the scenario is no longer in scope or a documented decision supersedes it.

Sources for this answer

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 standard page

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 clauses 7-10 ground the sequence from identification through assessment, treatment, acceptance, documented results, monitoring, and reassessment.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 standard page

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires the assessment process to identify owners, analyse and evaluate risks, and retain results; it separately requires treatment planning, approval, implementation, and retained results.

Section 4

Which risk-register mistakes should teams avoid?

Avoid orphaned entries, vague labels, silent score changes, expired acceptance, and duplicate scenarios with conflicting owners. Do not close a risk because a task was assigned or a control was installed. Record whether the control works, reassess the residual level, and obtain the required decision.

Do not call the register itself an ISO/IEC 27005 requirement. The requirement is for the relevant documented processes and results; the register is one way to organize them.
Do not aggregate risks that need different controls merely to reduce the row count, and do not split one decision into entries that hide cumulative exposure.
Do not let a current-state view erase the assessment, treatment, and acceptance history needed to reconstruct the decision.

Sources for this answer

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 standard page

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 explains that overlapping or aggregated risks can still require separate treatment and that documented results should preserve owners, criteria outcomes, priorities, controls, and rationale.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 standard page

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires documented assessment and treatment results, not evidence inferred from a status field.

Section 5

When should the risk register be reviewed?

Use a strategic review when the ISMS context, objectives, scope, appetite, or interested-party requirements change. Use a shorter operational cycle for changes to scenarios, assets, threats, vulnerabilities, controls, treatment actions, likelihood, consequences, incidents, or acceptance conditions. There is no universal annual register deadline: set planned intervals appropriate to the ISMS and add event-driven reviews when significant changes are proposed or occur.

Assign each entry a planned review date and named owners for the evidence and monitoring indicators.
Create event triggers for significant change, control-test failure, incident or near miss, new vulnerability or threat, missed milestone, and criteria change.
Review accepted and low risks individually and in aggregate; a group of small recurring events can create a material cumulative consequence.

Sources for this answer

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 standard page

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 clauses 5.2, 9.1, and 10.5 distinguish strategic and operational cycles and call for planned and change-driven monitoring of risk factors and cumulative exposure.

Primary sources

References and citations

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 standard page

iso.org

Referenced sections

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires documented assessment and treatment results, not evidence inferred from a status field.

"Information security management systems — Requirements"

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 standard page

iso.org

Referenced sections

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 clauses 5.2, 9.1, and 10.5 distinguish strategic and operational cycles and call for planned and change-driven monitoring of risk factors and cumulative exposure.