Every organisation needs an incident response plan. Most organisations have one. Few have plans that work when actually needed. The difference between effective and useless plans becomes painfully obvious during real incidents.
Plans sit on shelves gathering dust. Documentation created to satisfy compliance requirements rarely gets reviewed or updated. When incidents occur, responders discover the plan references systems that no longer exist and contacts who left the organisation years ago.
Incident classification schemes prove too complex or too vague. Plans define five severity levels with detailed criteria, but real incidents rarely fit neatly into predefined categories. Responders waste precious time debating classification while attackers continue their work.
Communication protocols break down under stress. Plans specify notification chains and communication methods, but fail to account for scenarios where primary systems are compromised. How do you coordinate response when email is unavailable? Plans need backup communication channels clearly documented. When you request a penetration test quote for incident response validation, ensure the assessment includes testing your communication protocols under attack conditions.
Role assignments assume key personnel availability. Your designated incident commander is on holiday when the breach occurs. The backup contact changed jobs six months ago. Effective plans need sufficient redundancy and clear succession protocols.
William Fieldhouse, Director of Aardwolf Security Ltd, notes: “Incident response plans fail because they’re not tested regularly or realistically. Paper exercises are useful, but they don’t replicate the chaos and pressure of real incidents. Organisations need regular scenario-based testing that stresses their response capabilities.”
Evidence preservation gets overlooked in the rush to restore services. Responders reimage compromised systems, destroying forensic evidence. Logs get overwritten before anyone captures them. Proper evidence handling requires planning and training.
Third-party relationships complicate response. Your cloud provider, managed service providers, and other vendors all have their own processes and timelines. Coordinating response across organisational boundaries adds complexity that plans rarely address adequately.
Legal and regulatory requirements aren’t integrated into response procedures. Plans focus on technical response but neglect notification requirements, evidence handling for potential legal action, and regulatory reporting obligations. Legal review of response plans prevents compliance failures during incidents.
Restoration procedures receive insufficient attention. Plans detail detection and containment but provide little guidance on safely restoring operations. Determining when systems are truly clean and safe to reconnect requires clear criteria and testing procedures.
Tabletop exercises validate plans without operational disruption. Regular scenario-based discussions walk through response procedures, identifying gaps and improving coordination. These exercises should escalate in complexity, eventually including technical components. Professional internal network penetration testing combined with incident response exercises provides comprehensive validation of your security programme.
Post-incident reviews capture lessons learned. After incidents, teams document what worked, what failed, and what needs improvement. These lessons inform plan updates, ensuring continuous improvement of response capabilities.
