Response Plan Exercise
Specification
Exercise the disaster response plan annually or upon significant changes, including, if possible, participation of local emergency authorities.
Threat coverage
Architectural relevance
Lifecycle
Data storage, Resource provisioning, Team and expertise
Not applicable
Not applicable
AI applications, Orchestration
Operations, Maintenance, Continuous monitoring
Archiving
Ownership / SSRM
PI
Owned by the Cloud Service Provider (CSP)
The Cloud Service Provider (CSP) is responsible for the design, development, implementation, and enforcement of the control to mitigate security, privacy, or compliance risks associated with cloud computing (processing, storage, and networking) technologies in the context of the services or products they develop and offer. The CSP is responsible and accountable for implementing the control within its own infrastructure/environment. The CSP is responsible for enabling the customer and/or upstream partner to implement/configure the control within their risk management approach. The CSP is accountable for ensuring that its providers upstream implement the control related to the service/product developed and offered by the CSP.
Model
Owned by the Model Provider (MP)
The model provider (MP) designs, develops, and implements the control as part of their services or products to mitigate security, privacy, or compliance risks associated with the Large Language Model (LLM). Model Providers are entities that develop, train, and distribute foundational and fine-tuned AI models for various applications. They create the underlying AI capabilities that other actors build upon. Model Providers are responsible for model architecture, training methodologies, performance characteristics, and documentation of capabilities and limitations. They operate at the foundation layer of the AI stack and may provide direct API access to their models. Examples: OpenAI (GPT, DALL-E, Whisper), Anthropic(Claude), Google(Gemini), Meta(Llama), as well as any customized model.
Orchestrated
Shared Model Provider-Orchestrated Service Provider (Shared MP-OSP)
The MP and OSP are jointly responsible and accountable for the design, development, implementation, and enforcement of the control to mitigate security, privacy, or compliance risks associated with Large Language Model (LLM)/GenAI technologies in the context of the services or products they develop and offer.
Application
Owned by the Application Provider (AP)
The Application Provider (AP) is responsible for the design, development, implementation, and enforcement of the control to mitigate security, privacy, or compliance risks associated with Large Language Model (LLM)/GenAI technologies in the context of the services or products they develop and offer. The AP is responsible and accountable for the implementation of the control within its own infrastructure/environment. If the control has downstream implications on the users/customers, the AP is responsible for enabling the customer and/or upstream partner in the implementation/configuration of the control within their risk management approach. The AP is accountable for carrying out the due diligence on its upstream providers (e.g MPs, Orchestrated Services) to verify that they implement the control as it relates to the service/product develop and offered by the AP. These providers build and offer end-user applications that leverage generative AI models for specific tasks such as content creation, chatbots, code generation, and enterprise automation. These applications are often delivered as software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions. These providers focus on user interfaces, application logic, domain-specific functionality, and overall user experience rather than underlying model development. Example: OpenAI (GPTs,Assistants), Zapier, CustomGPT, Microsoft Copilot (integrated into Office products), Jasper (AI-driven content generation), Notion AI (AI-enhanced productivity tools), Adobe Firefly (AI-generated media), and AI-powered customer service solutions like Amazon Rufus, as well as any organization that develops its AI-based application internally.
Implementation guidelines
Auditing guidelines
1. Examine the policy for planning and scheduling a disaster response exercise and involving local emergency authorities. 2. Evaluate if plans are tested upon significant changes or at least annually. 3. Verify that the exercises tested the recovery of all critical infrastructure components, including data centers, network connectivity, compute resources, and storage systems supporting AI operations. 4. Review exercise scenarios to confirm they included various disaster types relevant to infrastructure (e.g., power outages, network failures, facility damage, regional disasters) and assessed the organization's response capabilities. 5. Assess whether infrastructure failover mechanisms and redundancy capabilities were actively tested during exercises rather than just theoretically reviewed. 6. Verify that recovery time achievements were measured against defined recovery time objectives (RTOs) during exercises and documented in after-action reports. 7. Confirm that exercises included coordination with relevant external parties such as utility providers, facility management, or local emergency authorities, where appropriate and feasible. 8. Review documentation of lessons learned from exercises and verify that identified weaknesses in infrastructure recovery capabilities resulted in documented improvement plans with clear ownership and timelines. 9. Verify that additional exercises were conducted following significant infrastructure changes that could impact disaster recovery capabilities.
Standards mappings
ISO 42001: A.10.2 (Allocating responsibilities) ISO 27001: A.5.30 (ICT readiness for business continuity) ISO 27001: A.5.5 (Contact with authorities)
Addendum
N/A
Article 9 (2) Article 9 (6) Article 15 (1) Article 17 (1) (d) Article 93
Addendum
Exercise the disaster response plan annually or upon significant changes, including, if possible, local emergency authorities.
No Mapping
Addendum
Insert a new suggested action to require that the disaster response plan be exercised at least annually (or upon significant changes) and that such exercises include coordination with local emergency services and other critical stakeholders.
C4 RE-06 C5 BCM-04
Addendum
N/A
AI-CAIQ questions (1)
Is a structured approach to evaluate the effectiveness of the disaster response plan followed at planned intervals or upon significant changes, including, if possible, participation of local emergency authorities?