Under active development Content is continuously updated and improved

KSI-RPL-TRCTesting Recovery Capabilities

LOW
MODERATE

Formerly KSI-RPL-04

>Control Description

Persistently test the capability to recover from incidents and contingencies, including alignment with defined recovery objectives.
Defined terms:
Incident
Persistently

>NIST 800-53 Controls

>Trust Center Components
4

Ways to express your implementation of this indicator — approaches vary by organization size, complexity, and data sensitivity.

From the field: Mature implementations express compliance currency through living dashboards — all certifications with expiration dates and audit schedules verified via certificate registry APIs, SOC 2 bridge letters generated between annual reports, and compliance questionnaire responses maintained as continuously updated artifacts. Compliance becomes a continuously verifiable property.

Compliance Certifications Dashboard

Certifications & Badges

Living dashboard expressing all certifications with dates, scope, and validity status — verified via certificate registries

Automated: Certificate registry APIs verify certification validity and scope

Audit Report Summaries

Evidence Artifacts

Third-party audit report summaries — SOC 2 bridge letters, ISO surveillance audit results as evidence of ongoing compliance

Compliance Questionnaire Responses

Questionnaire Responses

Pre-filled responses to common compliance questionnaires — maintained as continuously updated artifacts

Compliance Calendar

Documents & Reports

Compliance calendar showing audit and certification renewal schedule

>Programmatic Queries

Beta
Cloud

CLI Commands

List restore jobs
aws backup list-restore-jobs --query "RestoreJobs[].{Id:RestoreJobId,Resource:ResourceType,Status:Status,Created:CreationDate,Completed:CompletionDate}" --output table --max-results 10
Check restore job details
aws backup describe-restore-job --restore-job-id <job-id> --query "{Status:Status,Created:CreationDate,Completed:CompletionDate,RecoveryPoint:RecoveryPointArn}" --output json

>20x Assessment Focus Areas

Aligned with FedRAMP 20x Phase Two assessment methodology

Completeness & Coverage:

  • Does recovery testing cover all critical failure scenarios — single-service failure, data corruption, availability zone loss, region loss, ransomware, and supply chain compromise?
  • Are all critical services and data stores included in recovery tests, or are some components tested only through tabletop exercises without actual recovery?
  • How do you ensure recovery testing validates the full recovery chain — from backup restoration through service startup through data integrity validation?
  • Are recovery tests conducted with realistic conditions (production-scale data, real dependencies, actual failover mechanisms) rather than simplified scenarios?

Automation & Validation:

  • What automated recovery testing runs on a regular schedule (automated failover drills, backup restore tests, chaos engineering experiments)?
  • How do you measure actual recovery times and compare them against defined RTOs during tests?
  • What happens when a recovery test fails to meet RTO/RPO — what remediation process triggers, and what is the deadline to retest?
  • How do you validate data integrity after recovery — confirming recovered data is complete, consistent, and not corrupted?

Inventory & Integration:

  • What tools and platforms support recovery testing (DR orchestration, chaos engineering tools, backup management consoles)?
  • How do recovery test results integrate with your recovery plan documentation to trigger plan updates when tests reveal gaps?
  • Are recovery test scenarios defined and version-controlled alongside recovery plans?
  • How do recovery test findings feed into your risk register and remediation tracking system?

Continuous Evidence & Schedules:

  • How frequently are recovery tests conducted for each critical service, and what evidence demonstrates the schedule has been followed?
  • Is recovery test data (test dates, scenarios tested, achieved RTO/RPO, issues found) available in structured format via API?
  • What evidence shows that recovery test findings have driven improvements to recovery plans and capabilities?
  • How do you demonstrate that recovery capabilities are persistently tested rather than only validated at assessment time?

Update History

2026-02-04Removed italics and changed the ID as part of new standardization in v0.9.0-beta; no material changes.

Ask AI

Configure your API key to use AI features.