Art.18(1) Classification of ICT-related incidents
What the standard requires
1. Financial entities shall classify ICT-related incidents and shall determine their impact based on the following criteria: (a) the number and/or relevance of clients or financial counterparts affected and, where applicable, the amount or number of transactions affected by the ICT-related incident, and whether the ICT-related incident has caused reputational impact; (b) the duration of the ICT-related incident, including the service downtime; (c) the geographical spread with regard to the areas affected by the ICT-related incident, particularly if it affects more than two Member States; (d) the data losses that the ICT-related incident entails, in relation to availability, authenticity, integrity or confidentiality of data; (e) the criticality of the services affected, including the financial entity’s transactions and operations; (f) the economic impact, in particular direct and indirect costs and losses, of the ICT-related incident in both absolute and relative terms.
Quoted verbatim from Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 (DORA), which is in the public domain.
Cross-framework mappings
No cross-framework mapping is seeded for this control. That is stated rather than filled in: a mapping nobody authored is worse than a gap you can see.
Integrations that carry evidence for this family
These connectors produce data relevant to DORA’s Incident Management family, which is the granularity CMDash publishes — there is no pre-built per-control mapping, and claiming one would be inventing it. You decide which evidence answers which control.
In CMDash this control is a row with an owner, a status, uploaded evidence kept with its full history, and an export an assessor can read.