Introduction
The importance of incident response planning (IRP) is highlighted by the enormous danger that breaches of cybersecurity present to modern enterprises. To handle and reduce the effects of such situations, IRP offers an organized strategy (Ahmad, Hadgkiss, & Ruighaver, 2012). The National Institute for Standards in Technology (NIST) Incident Response Life Cycle, a comprehensive framework that directs businesses through the complex process of resolving cyber incidents, is examined in this study. This expansive approach, which covers the preparation, detection and Analysis, Containment, Eradication, Recovery, and Post-Incident Activity stages, gives organizations the resources and techniques they need to prevent cybersecurity incidents effectively, react to them quickly, and learn from them (NIST, 2012). The study aims to objectively assess the benefits and drawbacks of various methods of incident response planning by comparing NIST’s recommendations with other models.
Purpose and Importance of Incident Response Planning
Incident response planning (IRP) aims to create a procedure that specifies how to respond to a cybersecurity issue efficiently. IRP seeks to lessen the severity and length of episodes while facilitating a quick and effective recovery (Kumar, Zazryn, & Chauhan, 2019). Organizations can reduce their susceptibility to assaults by actively preparing for future incidents using IRP. A well-designed IRP can assist businesses in identifying, containing, and resolving cybersecurity issues as fast as possible, helping to prevent reputational damage, limit financial losses, and maintain the continuation of essential activities.
In the modern digital era, the value of IRP cannot be emphasized. The potential for major company interruption and negative publicity develops as cyber threats become more sophisticated and frequent (Chen, Ramamurthy & Wen, 2020). A strong IRP assists in safeguarding priceless digital assets, retaining consumer confidence, preserving legal compliance, and guaranteeing the company’s general endurance. Additionally, the post-incident reviews and lessons learned that are a natural part of IRP build an atmosphere of continuous advancement in cybersecurity procedures by offering insightful information to guide subsequent preparedness and mitigation measures.
NIST Incident Response Life Cycle: Definition and Overview
The Incident Response Life Cycle (IRLC) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is an extensive structure that offers a systematic approach to handling cybersecurity issues. This framework, which consists of the following four crucial phases: preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication, recovery, and post-incident activity, attempts to provide companies with a road map for navigating a cyber-attack successfully and quickly (NIST, 2012). To ensure constant advancement in crisis response capacities, the structure emphasizes preemptive readiness and encourages a continuous learning method (Balakrishnan & Khan, 2020).
According to Gonzalez, Miers, Redigolo, Carvalho, Simplicio, Pourzandi & Debar (2018), the NIST framework is praised for its comprehensive perspective, which covers every element of response to incidents, from preventive measures through insights gained following an occurrence. By offering an organized and systematic strategy for responding to incidents and recovering from them, this lifecycle approach helps to reduce possible damage and interruption.
Preparation
The NIST Incident Response Life Cycle’s Planning stage, which is the starting point, is focused on taking preventive steps to successfully set up capacities to handle prospective cybersecurity incidents (NIST, 2012). During this phase, an incident response policy, plan, and procedures must be created. These documents must be thorough, understandable, and specifically customized to the requirements and environment of the firm. A thorough description of the various positions and duties throughout an event, as well as precise instructions for managing and escalating incidents, should be included in the preparations.
Furthermore, an adequately equipped Incident Response Team (IRT) needs to be developed. The IRT needs the technical expertise and ability to make the decisions needed to handle incidents. These abilities encompass incident analysis, confinement, removal, reimbursement, and post-event operations. Good communication skills are also essential for the IRT, as they are an essential part of the good handling of incidents (Kumar, Zazryn, & Chauhan, 2019).
The setting up of event detection capacities and the development of an incident classification scheme are also included in the planning phase. Organizations should use cutting-edge techniques and methods to expedite event identification and classification according to effect and intensity. This makes it possible to respond quickly and appropriately, given the circumstances of the occurrence (Balakrishnan & Khan, 2020). It is impossible to exaggerate the significance of the planning step. A proficient enterprise can react to incidents more swiftly and successfully, minimizing potential harm and interruption. Additionally, being prepared shows constituents that the organization is committed to cybersecurity and fosters a sense of confidence among them (Zhang, Zhao, & Xu, 2020).
Unlike the SANS approach, which also prioritizes planning, NIST offers a more thorough description of what that planning must comprise. It stresses the necessity of documented incident response legislation, plan, and protocols and the significance of an incident response team that has been adequately prepared and staffed. In addition, NIST emphasizes the value of forging and maintaining connections with other organizations, including law enforcement agencies, regulatory authorities, and outside cybersecurity specialists, who can be extremely helpful in the event of an occurrence (Gonzalez et al., 2018).
Detection and Analysis
During the Detection and Analysis phase of the NIST Incident Response Life Cycle, possible safety concerns are uncovered and evaluated for severity. Regarding security breaches, surveillance is all about looking for anything out of the ordinary. Many methods and tools, such as SIEM (security information and event management) and log administration solutions, may be used. To swiftly recognize possible risks to security, businesses rely on these solutions for continuous monitoring and alarm generation (Balakrishnan & Khan, 2020). The Analysis step begins when a possible occurrence is identified. The incident’s type and breadth, any impacted networks or data, and its potential effect on the organization are all determined at this crucial point. This careful examination is crucial because it lays the groundwork for creating an efficient and suitable response approach. In addition, this is when the occurrence is made known and recorded for analysis and instructional purposes (Kumar, Zazryn, & Chauhan, 2019).
The Detection and Analysis step is of utmost significance in the incident response framework. It provides the earliest indication that an invasion of privacy might have taken place and acts as a primary stage of protection from cyber-attacks. Rapid identification and comprehensive evaluation can greatly lessen the effects of occurrences, allowing for a quicker and more efficient reaction. Additionally, meticulous records throughout the analysis process may provide insightful tips for enhancing security protocols and averting related events in the future (Zhang, Zhao, & Xu, 2020).
Detection and analysis are crucial when comparing the NIST and SANS models. The NIST model, which outlines the procedures required in incident analysis, offers more thorough information. This comprises threat information integration, malware assessment, systems and network inspection, and remediation. The NIST model is a useful framework for incident detection and analysis because it enables enterprises to comprehend the full nature of an issue and respond properly (Gonzalez et al., 2018).
Containment, Eradication, and Recovery
The incident response team begins to lessen the impact of the incident throughout the Containment, Eradication, and Recovery phase of the NIST Incident Response Life Cycle (NIST, 2012). Containment is the first stage of this process, during which actions are taken to reduce the incident’s size and scope. Many containment approaches are available, such as isolating the infected systems, obstructing specific network activity, or deactivating user accounts. In order to prevent doing more damage than the incident itself, the choice of containment strategy must consider the incident’s type and scope (Zhang, Zhao, & Xu, 2020).
Following containment, eradication focuses on getting rid of the sources of the problem, such as malware, unapproved software, or unsecured network ports. In addition, the weaknesses accessed must be identified and mitigated, and artifacts about the incident must be gathered and documented for future investigation and, perhaps, legal action (Kumar, Zazryn, & Chauhan, 2019).
As the last stage of this process, recovery is restoring systems and data to their default states. This could entail updating software, restoring data from pristine copies, swapping out corrupted files, and improving security measures. Surveillance is crucial throughout this phase to confirm that all components operate correctly and that the danger has been nearly eliminated (Balakrishnan & Khan, 2020). Since it immediately tackles the consequences of the occurrence and seeks to resume routine tasks, the Containment, Eradication, and Restoration phase is crucial. The influence on the company’s activities, image, and bottom line can be reduced overall and minimized through the successful completion of this stage. Furthermore, the elimination procedure may offer priceless educational possibilities, assisting in developing more robust safety protocols and better event response techniques (Gonzalez et al., 2018).
The NIST and SANS models can be compared because they offer containment, eradication, and recovery recommendations. On the other hand, NIST provides a more comprehensive account, going into detail about every stage, such as solitude, eliminating harmful elements, and full reinstatement. It also strongly emphasizes documenting and analyzing information for potential advancement in the future, resulting in a thorough, iterative strategy for handling incidents. Despite supporting quick action, SANS might offer less information. As a result, the NIST framework is an efficient tool for boosting confidence in cybersecurity because of how it holistically approaches cybersecurity issues. This holistic approach also makes it possible for organizations to learn continuously.
Post-Incident Activity
The NIST Incident Response Life Cycle’s post-incident action step is essential because it enables companies to draw lessons about safety events and improve their ability to respond to similar situations in the future (NIST, 2012). The process entails an in-depth investigation and assessment of the occurrence, its consequences, and the efficiency of the reaction measures. The company evaluates what went smoothly, what did not, and which adjustments may be addressed at this point (Scarfone, Grance, & Masone, 2013).
Conducting a post-incident evaluation, documenting the event and response actions, and applying enhancements to the incident response strategy and other safety precautions are important operations during this stage. Any interested parties are included in the post-event evaluation, which aims to find any flaws in the incident response strategy that must be fixed and any insights gained that may enhance subsequent response operations (Almukaynizi et al., 2018). Additionally, every record produced throughout the incident response procedure is carefully examined and amended as required. This comprises event summaries, forensic data, records, and other pertinent paperwork. The information is used for various motives, such as strengthening the company’s safety position, assisting in creating educational resources, and backing up possible lawsuits (Deshpande et al., 2019). The enhancements found during the post-incident evaluation are then put into practice. This could entail increasing safety protocols, providing employees with additional schooling, revising the event’s reaction strategy, or purchasing novel safety equipment (López, Setola, & Wolthusen, 2020).
Both NIST and SANS frameworks emphasize the importance of post-incident measures when compared to one another. NIST offers more thorough instructions for carrying out post-incident feedback, amending records, and putting adjustments in place. The methodical approach NIST uses encourages continuous development through every occurrence, which is crucial for improving defensive postures. Its emphasis on accurate records encourages conceivable litigation, enhances safety precautions, and promotes educational activities. Also, it stands out because of its stated focus on putting into practice changes discovered through post-event evaluations, such as revising the strategy for responding to incidents, improving security controls, educating employees, or implementing new security technology. NIST is especially helpful for firms looking to continuously improve their safety measures and endurance in changing technological risks because of its methodical strategy, which encourages discovery and development.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, a company’s cybersecurity policy must include incident response planning. Organizations can efficiently handle and gain insight from safety concerns if they employ an organized strategy, like the NIST Incident Response Life Cycle. An effective response to an incident strategy requires careful attention to all five stages of the NIST model: pre-incident planning; incident detection and analysis; containment; elimination and restoration; and post-event activities. Organizations can keep up with the ever-evolving nature of digital dangers thanks to the algorithm’s dedication to constant education and development. NIST is a valuable tool for bolstering the resilience of cybersecurity since it offers an improved and more thorough structure than competing models like SANS. At Ropnet, where I work as a junior cyber security analyst, my knowledge of incident response strategy and the NIST framework would benefit one well.
References
Ahmad, A., Hadgkiss, J., & Ruighaver, T. (2012). Incident response teams – Challenges in supporting the organizational security function. Computers & Security, 31(5), 643–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2012.04.004
Almukaynizi, M., Nunes, E., Dharaiya, K., Senguttuvan, M., Shakarian, P., & Thart, A. (2018). Proactive Identification of Cybersecurity Threats Using Social Media. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 33(4), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2018.033001344
Balakrishnan, B., & Khan, M. (2020). Cyber Threat Intelligence Model for Risk Assessment. Procedia Computer Science, 171, 2442-2451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.04.258
Chen, Y., Ramamurthy, K., & Wen, K. (2020). Organizations’ Information Security Policy Compliance: Stick or Carrot Approach? Journal of Management Information Systems, 37(1), 278–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2020.1715380
Deshpande, A., Stewart, A., Lueders, S., & Chou, P. A. (2019). Robust Cyber-Physical Systems: Concept, Models, and Implementation. Future Internet, 11(2), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi11020039
Gonzalez, N., Miers, C., Redigolo, F., Carvalho, T., Simplicio, M., Pourzandi, M., & Debar, H. (2018). A Framework for Incident Handling in Industry 4.0. Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 9(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13174-018-0087-2
Kumar, N., Zazryn, M., & Chauhan, R. (2019). Proactive Cyber Threat Detection for Enterprise Security Using Online Machine Learning. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 48, 102386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2019.102386
López, J., Setola, R., & Wolthusen, S. D. (2020). Managing Cybersecurity Risk: Cases Studies and Solutions. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429446809
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2012). Computer Security Incident Handling Guide. NIST Special Publication, 800-61 Rev. 2. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-61r2
Scarfone, K., Grance, T., & Masone, K. (2013). Computer Security Incident Handling Guide. NIST Special Publication, pp. 800–61, Revision 2. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-61r2
Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., & Xu, X. (2020). An Intelligent and Secure IoT Framework with Edge Computing for Smart Farming. Information Processing in Agriculture, 7(2), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2020.02.004
write