Section: INCIDENT MANAGEMENT AND RESPONSE

Section: INFORMATION RISK MANAGEMENT
Explanation:
Security incident response plans should be tested to find any deficiencies and improve existing processes.
Testing the intrusion detection system (IDS) is a good practice but would not have prevented this situation. All personnel need to go through formal training to ensure that they understand the process, tools and methodology involved in handling security incidents. However, testing of the actual plans is more effective in ensuring the process works as intended. Reviewing the response procedures is not enough; the security response plan needs to be tested on a regular basis.

Continuous monitoring control initiatives are expensive, so they have to be used in areas where the risk is at its greatest level. These areas are the ones with high impact and high frequency of occurrence. Regulations and legislations that require tight IT security measures focus on requiring organizations to establish an IT security governance structure that manages IT security with a risk-based approach, so each organization decides which kinds of controls are implemented.
Continuous monitoring is not necessarily a requirement. Measures such as contingency planning are commonly used when incidents rarely happen but have a high impact each time they happen. Continuous monitoring is unlikely to be necessary. Continuous control monitoring initiatives are not needed in all electronic commerce environments. There are some electronic commerce environments where the impact of incidents is not high enough to support the implementation of this kind of initiative.

Section: INFORMATION RISK MANAGEMENT
Explanation:
Risk should be reduced to an acceptable level based on the risk preference of the organization. Reducing risk to zero is impractical and could be cost-prohibitive. Tying risk to a percentage of revenue is inadvisable since there is no direct correlation between the two. Reducing the probability of risk occurrence may not always be possible, as in the ease of natural disasters. The focus should be on reducing the impact to an acceptable level to the organization, not reducing the probability of the risk.