# What Is Incident Response: A Beginner's Overview
Incident response is the organized process an organization follows when a security event disrupts, threatens, or compromises its systems, data, or operations. It exists because attacks happen regardless of how well defenses are built, and the difference between a contained breach and a catastrophic one often comes down to how quickly and methodically a team responds. Without a structured approach, organizations improvise under pressure, make decisions that destroy forensic evidence, notify the wrong parties at the wrong time, and fail to stop the threat from spreading. Incident response gives practitioners a repeatable framework to detect what happened, contain the damage, eliminate the threat, recover operations, and extract lessons that improve future defenses. It is not a product you buy. It is a capability you build.
---
Incident response (IR) is the set of policies, procedures, roles, and technical actions that govern how an organization prepares for, detects, contains, eradicates, and recovers from security incidents. A security incident is any event that actually or potentially compromises the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system or the data it processes.
The term is often confused with adjacent concepts. Incident response is not the same as incident management, which is a broader IT service management function covering all service disruptions including hardware failures and outages unrelated to security. It is also not the same as disaster recovery, which focuses on restoring systems after major failures, or business continuity planning, which addresses how an organization maintains operations during extended disruptions. IR is specifically security-focused and threat-centric.
Incident response also differs from threat hunting. Threat hunting is a proactive activity where analysts search for hidden threats that have not yet triggered alerts. Incident response is reactive by nature, though a mature program incorporates proactive preparation that makes the reactive phase far more effective.
IR programs exist on a spectrum. A small organization might have a single documented plan and a part-time responder. A large enterprise might maintain a dedicated Security Operations Center (SOC), a Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT), and a formal IR retainer with an external firm. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) defines the standard framework in Special Publication 800-61, which organizes the process into four phases: Preparation; Detection and Analysis; Containment, Eradication, and Recovery; and Post-Incident Activity. The SANS Institute uses a six-phase model (Preparation, Identification, Containment, Eradication, Recovery, Lessons Learned), but both frameworks describe the same fundamental process.
---
Incident response follows a phased lifecycle. Each phase has specific objectives, tasks, and outputs. Understanding each phase mechanically is essential before a practitioner can execute any of them under pressure.
Phase 1: Preparation
Preparation is everything that happens before an incident occurs. This is where most organizations underinvest and where most failures originate. Preparation includes building an IR plan that defines what constitutes an incident, who is authorized to make containment decisions, how the team communicates internally and externally, and what tools are available. It also includes establishing logging and monitoring infrastructure so that when an incident occurs, the data needed to reconstruct events actually exists.
Concrete preparation tasks include: maintaining an up-to-date asset inventory; ensuring endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools are deployed; configuring centralized log collection (SIEM); establishing out-of-band communication channels in case primary email is compromised; and conducting tabletop exercises that simulate realistic attack scenarios.
Phase 2: Detection and Analysis
Detection begins when a potential incident is identified. Sources include automated alerts from the SIEM, EDR tools, intrusion detection systems, reports from users, or notifications from external parties such as law enforcement or threat intelligence providers.
Analysis is the most technically demanding phase. The responder must determine whether the event is a true positive or a false positive, assess its scope, identify affected systems, and classify the incident by type and severity. Incident types include malware infections, unauthorized access, denial-of-service attacks, data exfiltration, insider threats, and phishing campaigns, among others.
A concrete example: a SIEM generates an alert for a high volume of outbound DNS queries from a workstation at 2:00 AM. The analyst queries the EDR and finds that a PowerShell process spawned a child process that is communicating with an external IP address. The analyst correlates the IP against threat intelligence feeds and confirms it matches a known command-and-control infrastructure associated with a ransomware affiliate group. This is now a confirmed incident. The analyst documents the timeline, captures volatile memory if possible, and escalates to the IR lead.
Phase 3: Containment
Containment stops the spread of the threat. It is divided into short-term and long-term actions. Short-term containment might mean isolating the affected workstation from the network while preserving its state for forensic analysis. Long-term containment might mean deploying temporary firewall rules that block the malicious IP range while the team works toward full eradication.
A critical decision in containment is whether to take the affected system offline immediately or monitor it briefly to gather more intelligence about the attacker's behavior and potential additional footholds. This decision depends on the severity of ongoing damage, whether data exfiltration is still occurring, and the organization's legal and regulatory obligations.
Phase 4: Eradication
Eradication removes the threat from the environment. This means removing malware, closing the vulnerability that was exploited, disabling compromised accounts, and verifying that no backdoors or persistence mechanisms remain. Eradication without thorough forensic analysis is dangerous. If the responder does not understand how the attacker gained access and maintained persistence, they risk rebuilding a compromised system or leaving the attacker inside the environment.
Phase 5: Recovery
Recovery restores affected systems to normal operation. This includes rebuilding systems from clean images, restoring data from verified backups, and validating that systems are functioning correctly before returning them to production. Recovery is not complete until monitoring confirms that the threat is gone and systems are behaving normally.
Phase 6: Post-Incident Activity (Lessons Learned)
The post-incident review, often called a lessons-learned meeting, is conducted within two weeks of incident resolution. The team documents what happened, what the root cause was, how the incident was detected, what the response timeline looked like, what worked, and what failed. This output directly improves the IR plan, detection rules, and security controls. Organizations that skip this phase repeat the same incidents.
---
The business impact of poor incident response is measurable and severe. IBM's Cost of a Data Breach Report consistently shows that organizations with an IR team and tested IR plan contain breaches faster and spend significantly less on recovery than those without. In 2023, the average cost of a data breach reached $4.45 million globally. Organizations with no IR capability faced higher costs and longer breach lifecycles.
The 2020 SolarWinds supply chain compromise illustrates what happens when detection and response capabilities are inadequate at scale. Attackers inserted malicious code into a software update that was distributed to approximately 18,000 organizations. Many victims did not detect the intrusion for months because they lacked the logging depth, detection rules, and response processes needed to identify the specific behaviors the attackers used. The organizations that detected it quickly shared one common characteristic: mature IR programs with robust telemetry and practiced response procedures.
Without IR capability, organizations face several compounding consequences. First, they have no structured way to determine the full scope of an attack, which means they cannot be confident the threat is actually gone. Second, they often take actions that destroy forensic evidence, making it impossible to understand the root cause or meet regulatory reporting requirements. Third, they communicate inconsistently to regulators, customers, and partners, which creates legal exposure and reputational damage.
A common misconception is that incident response is only relevant to large enterprises. Small and mid-sized organizations are targeted frequently, and their reduced staff and budget make an organized response more critical, not less. A documented plan, even a simple one, dramatically improves outcomes compared to improvised responses. Another misconception is that incident response ends when the system is restored. Recovery without a documented post-incident review leaves the organization vulnerable to the same attack vector.
---
The Center for Defense and Analysis (CDA) approaches incident response through the Predictive Defense Intelligence (PDI) methodology under the Threat Intelligence and Detection (TID) domain of the Planetary Defense Model. The PDI principle, "See the threat before it sees you," applies directly to how CDA frames IR: the goal is not to react to incidents after maximum damage has occurred, but to build detection and response capabilities that compress attacker dwell time and degrade the attacker's ability to achieve objectives.
CDA's TID domain treats incident response as an intelligence-driven process rather than a purely technical one. This means that when a potential incident is identified, the first analytical question is not only "what happened" but "who does this behavior pattern belong to, and what are they likely to do next." By correlating incident indicators against structured threat intelligence (including MITRE ATT&CK mappings, known adversary TTPs, and sector-specific threat data), responders can anticipate attacker behavior rather than simply chasing artifacts already left behind.
In practical terms, CDA emphasizes three operational differences from conventional IR approaches. First, preparation includes building detection content specifically aligned to the TTPs most likely to target the organization's sector and profile, not just generic detection rules. Second, during detection and analysis, responders are trained to classify incidents using the MITRE ATT&CK framework, which enables faster escalation decisions and more precise containment actions. Third, post-incident reviews at CDA explicitly feed back into the threat intelligence cycle, updating adversary profiles and improving predictive detection logic for future incidents.
This approach matters because it transforms IR from a cost center that absorbs damage into an active intelligence collection function that makes the organization progressively harder to compromise. Each incident, handled properly, yields information that shifts the advantage away from the attacker.
---
---
---