cm/controlmapping
Sources
ISO 27001 · A.5 Organizational controls
A.5.30

ICT readiness for business continuity

frameworkISO/IEC 27001:2022 sectionA.5 Organizational controls csf 2.0RC.RP-02 topicsRecovery Planning, Business Continuity, Disaster Recovery frameworks5 5 1 2
Official text · not licensableTitle: ICT readiness for business continuity. The control text is ISO's copyright; see ISO/IEC 27001:2022.

Wrong or missing mapping? Report it

Equivalents of A.5.30 in other frameworks
FrameworkRequirementTitleLinkSource / reason
NIST CSF 2.0GV.OC-04ID.IM-04PR.IR-03RC.RP-01RC.RP-02RC.RP-04RC.RP-05Critical objectives, capabilities, and services that external stakeholders depend on or expect from the organization are understood and communicated; Incident response plans and other cybersecurity plans that affect operations are established, communicated, maintained, and improved…CrosswalkSame topic: Business Continuity, Recovery Planning, Disaster Recovery
CIS v8.1CIS 11.1Establish and Maintain a Data Recovery ProcessEditorialSame topic: Recovery Planning, Disaster Recovery (editorial pick)
SOC 2A1.1A1.2A1.3CC7.5CC9.1Capacity management to meet availability commitments; Environmental protections, backups and recovery infrastructure…EditorialSame topic: Business Continuity, Disaster Recovery, Recovery Planning (editorial pick)
PCI DSS12.10.1Incident response plan ready to activateCrosswalkSame topic: Recovery Planning, Business Continuity, Disaster Recovery
4 loosely related (not mappings)
1.2.3 Accurate network diagram maintained Loosely related
Only shares CSF RC.RP-02: related, not a mapping
1.2.4 Accurate account-data flow diagram maintained Loosely related
Only shares CSF RC.RP-02: related, not a mapping
12.10.2 Incident response plan reviewed and tested annually Loosely related
Only shares CSF RC.RP-02: related, not a mapping
12.10.6 Plan updated from lessons learned and industry changes Loosely related
Only shares CSF RC.RP-02: related, not a mapping
CMMCIR.L2-3.6.1Incident HandlingLoosely relatedNo mapping. Only shares CSF RC.RP-02: related, not a mapping
800-53CP-2CP-2(8)CP-10CP-7CA-2CP-4Contingency Plan; Identify Critical Assets…CrosswalkSame topic: Recovery Planning, Business Continuity, Disaster Recovery
NIST SP 800-53 → ISO 27001 mapping
2 loosely related (not mappings)
IR-4 Incident Handling Loosely related
Only shares CSF RC.RP-02: related, not a mapping
IR-8 Incident Response Plan Loosely related
Only shares CSF RC.RP-02: related, not a mapping
HIPAA§164.308(a)(7)§164.308(a)(7)(ii)(B)§164.308(a)(7)(ii)(C)§164.308(a)(7)(ii)(D)Contingency Plan; Disaster Recovery Plan…CrosswalkSame topic: Recovery Planning, Disaster Recovery, Business Continuity
2 loosely related (not mappings)
§164.308(a)(6) Security Incident Procedures Loosely related
Only shares CSF RC.RP-02: related, not a mapping
§164.308(a)(6)(ii) Response and Reporting Loosely related
Only shares CSF RC.RP-02: related, not a mapping
GDPRArt.32(1)(b)Art.32(1)(c)Security of processing; Security of processingEditorialSame topic: Business Continuity, Recovery Planning, Disaster Recovery (editorial pick)
NIS24.14.24.3Business continuity and disaster recovery plan; Backup management…CrosswalkSame topic: Recovery Planning, Business Continuity, Disaster Recovery
Essential EightISM-1515Restoration of data, applications and settings from backups to a common point in time…EditorialSame topic: Disaster Recovery (editorial pick)
DORAArt.11(1)Art.11(3)Art.11(4)Art.11(6)Art.12(4)Art.12(6)Response and recovery; Response and recovery…EditorialSame topic: Business Continuity, Recovery Planning, Disaster Recovery (editorial pick)
CPS 234—No requirementNo mapping in our dataNo mapping in our data (CPS 234 is principles-based and its links are editorial).
Cyber Essentials—No requirementNo mapping in our dataNo mapping in our data (Cyber Essentials covers five technical controls only).

Crosswalk a published crosswalk (NIST, ENISA, CIS, PCI SSC) makes the link · Editorial ControlMapping's judgement where no crosswalk exists; the reason is shown · Loosely related only shares a CSF 2.0 outcome: worth checking, not a mapping · No mapping in our data nothing mapped in our data; often new work, but check the coverage notes. How links are sourced.