Containment strategy

A containment strategy requirement means you must be able to stop or limit an active security incident quickly without taking down critical business services, and you must prove you can do it. Operationalize this by pre-defining containment playbooks by incident type and criticality, including decision authority, technical actions, and evidence capture aligned to NIST SP 800-61. ¹

Key takeaways:

• Pre-approved containment playbooks reduce delay, confusion, and business-impact overreaction during incidents. ¹
• Containment must balance two outcomes: limit adversary activity and preserve essential operations. ¹
• Evidence matters: document the containment decision, actions taken, and what business services were protected or intentionally degraded. ¹

The containment strategy requirement is where incident response becomes operational. Detection and triage tell you an incident is happening; containment is the set of actions that stops the bleeding while keeping the lights on. NIST SP 800-61 frames the expectation plainly: “Contain active incidents while preserving business operations.” ¹

For a CCO or GRC lead, the practical challenge is not writing a policy that says “we contain incidents.” The challenge is setting up decision rights, playbooks, and technical capabilities so your teams can contain fast, consistently, and defensibly across common incident types (ransomware, BEC, cloud compromise, data exfiltration, third-party breach). You also need audit-ready artifacts that demonstrate containment was planned, tested, and executed with appropriate approvals and documentation.

This page focuses on requirement-level implementation guidance: who it applies to, what you need in place before an incident, what to do during containment, what evidence to retain, and what examiners typically probe when they assess whether containment is real or aspirational.

Regulatory text

Regulatory excerpt (NIST SP 800-61): “Contain active incidents while preserving business operations.” ¹

What the operator must do:
You need a defined, repeatable method to (1) stop or limit attacker activity, spread, and impact, and (2) maintain or restore critical services to an acceptable level during the incident. Your containment approach must be planned in advance, executable under pressure, and documented well enough that a reviewer can trace decisions to risk and business priorities. ¹

Plain-English interpretation of the containment strategy requirement

Containment is the controlled move from “we see something wrong” to “we are actively preventing further harm.” In practice, that means:

• You can isolate affected accounts, endpoints, segments, workloads, or third parties quickly.
• You can do it without unnecessary downtime or destructive actions that erase evidence.
• You have a decision framework for when to isolate aggressively vs. keep services running with compensating controls. ¹

A containment strategy requirement is met when your organization can show it has planned containment actions, knows who can authorize them, and can demonstrate execution through incident records, tickets, and logs.

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

This requirement applies broadly to organizations using NIST SP 800-61 as their incident handling guide, with particular fit for:

• Critical infrastructure operators with operational continuity constraints and high-impact downtime risk. ¹
• Service organizations that must contain incidents while meeting customer commitments and shared responsibility boundaries. ¹

Operationally, it applies anywhere you have:

• Production systems and customer-facing services
• Identity providers and privileged access paths
• Cloud and SaaS environments where containment often means credential/session revocation
• Third-party dependencies (MSSPs, hosting providers, SaaS, payment processors) where containment requires coordination across parties

What you actually need to do (step-by-step)

Step 1: Define “containment” for your environment (scope + objectives)

Document, in your incident response standard, what containment means for your systems:

• Primary objective: stop active attacker behavior or propagation
• Business objective: maintain critical operations or prioritize controlled degradation (e.g., read-only mode, restricted geographies, reduced features)
• Evidence objective: preserve forensic integrity where feasible (logs, memory images, cloud audit trails) ¹

Deliverable: a short containment strategy statement embedded in the IR plan, with links to playbooks. ¹

Step 2: Build containment playbooks by incident type and criticality

Create playbooks that are pre-approved to the extent possible, so you do not negotiate basics mid-incident. At minimum, cover:

• Ransomware / destructive malware
• Identity compromise (privileged and non-privileged)
• Business email compromise (BEC)
• Data exfiltration indicators
• Web app compromise / active exploitation
• Third-party compromise affecting your data or operations

Each playbook should include a criticality tier (high/medium/low) and explicitly state:

• Containment triggers (what evidence or conditions require action)
• Allowed containment actions (and which are “break-glass”)
• Decision authority (who can approve disruptive actions)
• Time-sensitive steps (what happens first vs. later)
• Required documentation steps (what you must record) ¹

Recommended control: Define containment playbooks by incident type and criticality. ¹

Step 3: Establish decision rights and an “incident containment commander” model

Containment fails when everyone waits for permission or multiple leaders issue conflicting instructions. Define:

• Incident Commander (often IR lead) who coordinates containment execution
• System Owners who understand business impact and can approve service changes
• Security/IT Operators authorized to isolate hosts, disable accounts, change firewall rules, revoke tokens
• Legal/Compliance for evidence handling and notification decision support
• Third-party owners for vendor coordination and contractual escalation paths

Write a RACI that clarifies who can:

• Disable user accounts or reset credentials
• Quarantine endpoints
• Block IPs/domains
• Rotate keys, revoke sessions, disable integrations
• Take services offline or failover ¹

Step 4: Prepare the technical “containment toolkit”

Containment must be executable with the tools you actually have. Validate your capability for:

• Identity containment: forced password resets, MFA resets, session/token revocation, conditional access tightening
• Endpoint containment: isolation/quarantine, EDR response actions, collecting volatile data before shutdown where appropriate
• Network containment: segmentation controls, firewall blocks, DNS sinkhole, WAF rules
• Cloud/SaaS containment: disable API keys, rotate secrets, restrict IAM roles, isolate workloads, snapshot evidence
• Email containment: mailbox rules removal, forwarding blocks, domain blocks, safe-links/safe-attachments actions
• Third-party containment: suspend integrations, restrict data flows, require vendor incident bridge, request logs and scope statements ¹

Practical note: pair each playbook step with the exact console/path or automation you will use (EDR action name, IdP workflow, ticket template). That is what turns a binder into operations.

Step 5: Run a “containment decision” checklist during incidents

During an active incident, use a standard checklist to document the decision:

1. What is the impacted asset/service, and what is the containment goal?
2. What is the risk of spread or continued attacker action if you wait?
3. What business process will break if you isolate immediately?
4. What compensating controls can reduce risk while preserving operations?
5. What evidence must be captured before isolation/rebuild?
6. Who approved the action, and when? ¹

This checklist is a major audit artifact because it shows you balanced containment with operations, rather than reacting blindly. ¹

Step 6: Execute containment with controlled blast radius

Containment actions should scale with confidence and severity. Use a decision matrix:

Scenario	Preferred containment	Escalation if adversary persists
Single endpoint compromise	Isolate endpoint, disable account, collect key logs	Isolate subnet, hunt for lateral movement
Privileged account suspected	Revoke sessions, disable account, rotate secrets	Restrict admin paths, emergency IAM policy changes
Active data exfiltration	Block egress paths, isolate host/workload, tighten IAM	Pause data pipelines, restrict outbound traffic broadly
Third-party incident	Suspend integration, rotate shared secrets, require vendor scope	Segment vendor connectivity, invoke contract escalation

Tie each action to tickets and approvals. ¹

Step 7: Validate containment and hand off to eradication/recovery

Containment is not “done” when you push a block rule. Define what “contained” means (e.g., no further malicious authentication, no new indicators, no additional encryption events) and record:

• Checks performed
• Monitoring changes (temporary logging increases)
• Criteria to move to eradication and recovery ¹

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep evidence that proves both planning and execution.

Design-time artifacts

• Incident Response Plan section describing containment approach ¹
• Containment playbooks by incident type and criticality ¹
• RACI / decision authority matrix for disruptive actions ¹
• Containment tool access list (who has EDR isolate rights, IdP admin, firewall admin), plus review evidence ¹

Run-time artifacts ²

• Incident timeline with containment milestones
• Containment decision checklist with approvals
• Change tickets (firewall, IAM, endpoint actions), including who executed and when
• Screenshots/exports of key containment actions (where feasible)
• Preservation actions taken (log exports, snapshots) and chain-of-custody notes when applicable ¹

Testing artifacts

• Tabletop or simulation results focused on containment decisions and execution gaps ¹

Tip for audit readiness: store these artifacts in a single “incident packet” folder with a standard index so you can produce them without hunting.

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect reviewers to probe these areas:

• “Show me your containment playbooks. How do they differ by incident type and severity?” ¹
• “Who can take a system offline? Where is that authority documented?” ¹
• “How do you prevent evidence loss while you contain?” ¹
• “Demonstrate containment from a real incident: what changed in IAM, endpoints, network?” ¹
• “How do you handle containment when the incident involves a third party?” ¹

Hangup you’ll see: teams produce a policy statement but cannot show a repeatable containment decision record or a tested workflow.

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

1. One generic playbook for everything.
   Fix: keep a common skeleton, but create incident-specific containment actions and triggers. ¹

2. Containment equals “shut it down.”
   Fix: define acceptable degraded states and compensating controls with business owners ahead of time. ¹

3. No clear authority for disruptive actions.
   Fix: document decision rights, with named roles and alternates, and align to your change management emergency process. ¹

4. Evidence is destroyed during containment.
   Fix: add “capture first” steps for logs/snapshots where feasible, and train responders on what not to do (e.g., wiping systems before collecting key artifacts). ¹

5. Third-party containment is an afterthought.
   Fix: pre-plan isolation of integrations, credential rotation, vendor escalation contacts, and contract notification hooks. ¹

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for this requirement, so this page does not cite enforcement outcomes.

Risk implications you should assume operationally:

• Weak containment increases the probability of spread (more systems impacted, more data exposed, longer outages).
• Poor documentation increases the chance you cannot demonstrate reasonable incident handling to customers, auditors, and regulators assessing your control environment. ¹

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

Day 0–30: Build the minimum viable containment strategy

• Assign an owner for containment strategy (IR lead) and a governance owner (GRC/CCO delegate).
• Draft the decision authority RACI for high-impact containment actions (account disablement, endpoint isolation, network blocks, service shutdown).
• Create initial containment playbooks for your top incident types, mapped to criticality tiers. ¹
• Stand up an “incident packet” template for evidence capture (timeline, approvals, tickets, key screenshots/log exports).

Day 31–60: Make it executable in production

• Validate access: confirm who can execute each containment action in EDR, IdP, firewall/WAF, cloud IAM, and SaaS admin.
• Create pre-approved emergency change procedures for containment-related actions and link them from playbooks.
• Run a tabletop focused on a hard tradeoff scenario (e.g., suspected privileged compromise in a revenue-critical system) and record decisions and gaps. ¹
• Add third-party containment steps for key integrations (suspend connection, rotate secrets, vendor escalation).

Day 61–90: Prove repeatability and close audit gaps

• Update playbooks based on tabletop findings and operational feedback.
• Run a second exercise that tests technical execution paths (who clicks what, where, and how evidence is captured). ¹
• Implement a recurring review cadence for playbooks and access rights.
• If you manage many third parties or complex environments, consider using Daydream to standardize playbook evidence, map containment steps to requirements, and package incident artifacts for audits without rebuilding the binder each cycle. ¹

Frequently Asked Questions

What’s the difference between containment and eradication?

Containment stops or limits active harm and spread while keeping operations as stable as practical. Eradication removes the root cause (malware, persistence, compromised accounts) after you have the incident under control. ¹

Do we have to keep systems running during containment?

The requirement is to preserve business operations where feasible while containing the incident. Pre-define what “acceptable degradation” looks like so responders do not have to improvise shutdown decisions. ¹

How do we document “we balanced containment with operations” in an audit-ready way?

Use a containment decision checklist that records the risk of spread, anticipated business impact, alternatives considered, approvals, and the final action. Attach supporting tickets and system logs that show the action was executed. ¹

How should containment work when a third party is involved?

Treat third-party connections as containment control points: suspend integrations, rotate shared secrets, restrict network connectivity, and require timely scope and indicators from the third party. Keep a record of communications and the containment actions taken on your side. ¹

Can we automate containment actions?

Yes, if automation is controlled and logged. Keep clear criteria for automated actions, preserve evidence, and ensure an incident commander can override or roll back actions when business impact is higher than expected. ¹

What’s the minimum set of playbooks to start with?

Start with the incident types most likely to cause rapid spread or high-impact downtime in your environment, then expand. Make each playbook include triggers, decision authority, technical steps, and required evidence capture. ¹

Related compliance topics

• 2025 SEC Marketing Rule Examination Focus Areas
• Access and identity controls
• Access Control (AC)
• Access control and identity discipline
• Access control management

Footnotes

1. NIST SP 800-61

2. incident