Practical toolGlobalISO/IEC 27035

ISO/IEC 27035 Incident Response Playbook

Build ISO/IEC 27035-aligned playbooks that guide detection, triage, analysis, containment, eradication, recovery, reporting, and evidence preservation.

ISO/IEC 27035 is voluntary guidance, not a law or standalone certification scheme. Adapt it to the incident and apply separate legal, regulatory, contractual, and ISO/IEC 27001 requirements where relevant.

Author
Sorena AI
Published
May 9, 2026
Updated
Jul 24, 2026
Sections
5

Structured answer sets in this page tree.

Primary sources
3

Cited legal and guidance references.

Publication metadata
Sorena AI
Published May 9, 2026
Updated Jul 24, 2026
Overview

Organizations create their own playbooks for ; ISO/IEC 27035 does not supply an official playbook form. Use the playbook beneath the incident management policy and plan to tell responders what to check, who can decide, what evidence to protect, when to escalate, and how to confirm recovery for a defined incident type. ISO/IEC 27035-2:2023 grounds preparation; ISO/IEC 27035-3:2020 grounds ICT response operations.

Section 1

What belongs in an ISO/IEC 27035-aligned response playbook?

Define the incident type and activation criteria first. Name the systems, services, data, users, suppliers, and environments the playbook covers, plus conditions that require a different playbook or specialist help. State the severity inputs, incident coordinator, response roles, alternates, decision authority, communication routes, safety constraints, and dependencies.

Then give an ordered but adaptable route through detection and validation, notification, triage, analysis, containment, eradication, recovery, reporting, and conclusion. Responders should be able to see the objective, required inputs, approved actions, evidence precautions, decision owner, output, and escalation trigger for every major step.

Build playbooks around the incident types and assets that the risk assessment says the organization needs to handle. ISO/IEC 27035-3 examples include malicious email or attachments, web attacks, brute-force or denial-of-service activity, supply-chain compromise, impersonation, improper use, and loss or theft of devices or media. These are starting points, not a complete taxonomy. Keep an exception route for an unknown incident type, with a default decision authority and a time limit for management approval.

  • Header: playbook owner, version, approval, last exercise, covered scenario, prerequisites, tools, contacts, and related plans.
  • Authority table: actions responders may take immediately and actions requiring incident-coordinator, asset-owner, continuity, safety, legal, privacy, communications, or executive approval.
  • Stop conditions: danger to people, loss of essential service, evidence risk, uncertain scope, destructive action, supplier dependency, or a threshold for crisis and business-continuity management.
  • Fallback route: instructions for an unrecognized event, unavailable tool, failed communication channel, absent approver, inaccessible system, or action whose consequences exceed the playbook's tested assumptions.
Section 2

How should the playbook guide triage and analysis?

Triage should confirm the report, identify the affected service or asset, assign priority from the organization's scale, and route the incident to people with the needed skills and authority. The playbook can offer scenario-specific questions, but it should not force an early conclusion when the facts are incomplete.

Analysis should separate observations from hypotheses. Record what happened, when it began, how it was detected, which accounts, hosts, data, services, and parties may be affected, what the adversary or failure can still do, and what information would confirm or reject each hypothesis. Correlate the incident with prior events and update scope and severity when new evidence appears.

  • Minimum triage output: incident identifier, validation result, category, current severity, affected business service, coordinator, assigned team, evidence location, and next decision time.
  • Analysis prompts: attack or failure path, affected identities and assets, persistence, lateral movement, data access or loss, control failures, business impact, external dependencies, and confidence or uncertainty.
  • Escalate when impact or uncertainty exceeds the playbook's authority, when specialist evidence handling is needed, or when the incident can trigger continuity, safety, contractual, privacy, regulatory, or law-enforcement processes.
Section 3

How should containment, eradication, and recovery decisions be written?

Containment aims to limit continuing damage while preserving enough information to understand and resolve the incident. For each option, state the expected effect, operational cost, evidence risk, dependencies, approval, and rollback condition. Isolation, account disabling, filtering, or shutdown can protect services, but each can also destroy volatile data, interrupt critical operations, or hide activity.

Eradication removes incident components such as malicious code, compromised credentials, persistence, or unsafe configurations. Recovery restores systems, services, or data to an accepted operational state. The playbook should require clean sources, security hardening, credential actions, validation tests, monitoring for recurrence, business-owner acceptance, and a route back to analysis if recovery exposes new compromise.

  • Decision record: current facts and uncertainties, available options, chosen action, rejected alternatives where material, approver, start time, result, and next checkpoint.
  • Evidence gate: collect and protect information needed for analysis or a later investigation before changing a compromised system when feasible and authorized.
  • Recovery gate: confirm the restored state, patches or configuration changes, credential resets, monitoring, business acceptance, remaining risk, and rollback or continuity status.
Section 4

How should reporting and evidence handling fit the playbook?

Keep one chronological incident log that records observations, hypotheses, actions, results, approvals, evidence references, communications, and changes of direction. The playbook should tell responders where to record information and how to protect sensitive content; it should not scatter the authoritative chronology across chat, tickets, and personal notes.

List internal and external reporting routes by role, trigger, required facts, approval, channel, and source of the deadline. ISO/IEC 27035 supports timely, organized reporting but does not create a universal 24-hour or 72-hour legal limit. Legal, regulatory, contractual, insurer, customer, and law-enforcement decisions need their own applicability analysis.

  • Preserve the original event report and timestamps; append corrections instead of silently rewriting the record.
  • Use a separate evidence item identifier for collected files, images, devices, exports, or samples, with collector, source, method, integrity information, transfers, storage, access, and disposition as applicable.
  • Do not copy legal notification wording into every playbook without confirming the covered entity, incident type, jurisdiction, trigger, recipient, clock start, content, and update requirements.
Section 5

How should the playbook be tested and maintained?

Exercise the playbook at a depth proportionate to the scenario. A discussion can test roles and decisions; a simulation can test handoffs and communications; a technical exercise can test tools, access, evidence capture, containment, and recovery. Include relevant service providers when they hold logs, operate controls, or must approve or perform response actions.

Assign findings to owners and verify the resulting changes. Review the playbook after incidents, exercises, technology or supplier changes, threat changes, contact changes, and new legal or contractual obligations. Retire stale steps explicitly so responders do not follow an old system name, unavailable tool, expired credential, or departed contact.

  • Test activation, authority, after-hours contacts, access to tools and logs, communication approvals, evidence handling, containment choices, recovery validation, and escalation.
  • Record exercise assumptions, injects, decisions, elapsed times, failed handoffs, evidence produced, findings, owners, due dates, and retest results.
  • Keep a version and approval history; responders should know which version is active and how to report a defect during an incident.
Primary sources

References and citations

iso.org
Referenced sections
  • Part 1 covers consistent incident documentation, the incident log and register, communication, and organization-defined or legally required reporting intervals.
iso.org
Referenced sections
  • Part 2 covers exercises, incident response capability monitoring, improvement identification and implementation, and incident response team evaluation.
Related guides

Explore more topics

ISO/IEC 27035 Compliance Guide
Understand what the ISO/IEC 27035 series covers, how its three published parts fit together, and how to adopt the guidance without mistaking it for a law or certification scheme.
ISO/IEC 27035 CSIRT Roles FAQ
Assign ISO/IEC 27035 incident coordinator, IMT, IRT or CSIRT, point-of-contact, evidence, communications, and business decision roles.
ISO/IEC 27035 Escalation FAQ
Define ISO/IEC 27035 escalation and elevation triggers, authorities, handoff evidence, and reassessment rules before incidents occur.
ISO/IEC 27035 Event vs Incident FAQ
Distinguish an information security event from an incident under ISO/IEC 27035 and record the assessment without discarding useful event evidence.
ISO/IEC 27035 Evidence Log Template
Use an ISO/IEC 27035-aligned incident log to preserve facts, decisions, actions, communications, evidence references, and chain-of-custody information.
ISO/IEC 27035 Incident Lifecycle Guide
Follow the ISO/IEC 27035 five-phase incident-management process and understand how the detailed ICT response loop fits inside it.
ISO/IEC 27035 Incident Lifecycle Workflow
Turn the ISO/IEC 27035 lifecycle into an operational workflow with explicit decisions, handoffs, owners, evidence, and reopening triggers.
ISO/IEC 27035 Incident Management FAQ
Plain-language ISO/IEC 27035 answers on events, incidents, roles, severity, escalation, evidence, notification, retention, review, and lessons learned.
ISO/IEC 27035 Incident Severity and Escalation Matrix
Design an ISO/IEC 27035-aligned severity and escalation matrix using impact, priority, damage, urgency, recoverability, and reporting triggers.
ISO/IEC 27035 Incident Timer Workflow
Create an incident clock that tracks operational checkpoints and separate legal or contractual deadlines without inventing ISO/IEC 27035 time limits.
ISO/IEC 27035 Lessons Learned FAQ
Apply ISO/IEC 27035 lessons learned to plans, controls, risk decisions, training, relationships, metrics, and future response capability.
ISO/IEC 27035 Notification Evidence FAQ
Preserve evidence for internal and external incident notifications without attributing legal deadlines or reporting duties to ISO/IEC 27035.
ISO/IEC 27035 Notification Threshold Mapping Guide
Map ISO/IEC 27035 incident reporting routes to separate legal, contractual, customer, supplier, insurer, and internal notification thresholds.
ISO/IEC 27035 Post Incident Review FAQ
Run an ISO/IEC 27035 post-incident review after stabilization and recovery, then assign measurable improvements without losing accountability.
ISO/IEC 27035 Retained Logs FAQ
Retain ISO/IEC 27035 incident logs and digital evidence according to purpose, investigation needs, law, contracts, privacy, and organizational policy.
ISO/IEC 27035 Severity Classification FAQ
Classify incident severity under ISO/IEC 27035 using organization-specific criteria and reassess it as facts, impact, and recoverability change.
ISO/IEC 27035 vs ISO 22301 Comparison
Compare ISO/IEC 27035 incident-management guidance with ISO 22301 business continuity management-system requirements and certification scope.
ISO/IEC 27035 vs NIS2 Comparison
Compare voluntary ISO/IEC 27035 incident-management guidance with binding NIS2 duties for in-scope EU entities and national implementation.
ISO/IEC 27035 vs NIST SP 800-61 Comparison
Compare ISO/IEC 27035 with the current NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3 while preserving this legacy route for visitors using the older publication name.
ISO/IEC 27035 vs NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3 Comparison
Compare the ISO/IEC 27035 series with NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3 incident-response guidance and show how organizations can use both.