Data Breach Response Framework for Indian Organisations

Effective breach response begins with detection capabilities that identify incidents promptly. Many breaches remain undetected for extended periods, with studies indicating average discovery times exceeding 200 days for sophisticated attacks. This detection gap not only increases harm but complicates notification compliance under DPDPA.

Detection mechanisms should span technical and human elements. Security monitoring tools can identify anomalous network activity, unusual data access patterns, or system compromises. Employee reporting channels allow staff to flag suspicious activities or potential incidents. Customer complaints sometimes provide the first indication of data exposure. Vendor notifications may alert organisations to supply chain incidents affecting their data.

Initial assessment determines whether a detected event constitutes a personal data breach requiring further response. Not every security incident involves personal data, and not every personal data incident constitutes a notifiable breach. The initial assessment establishes facts necessary for these determinations: what data was involved, how many individuals affected, what circumstances caused the incident, and what immediate containment measures are needed.

Once a breach is confirmed, immediate priorities shift to stopping ongoing harm while preserving evidence for investigation. These objectives sometimes conflict: the fastest way to stop an attack might destroy evidence of how it occurred. Breach response plans must anticipate these tensions and establish clear priorities.

Containment measures depend on incident nature. Network intrusions may require isolating affected systems, blocking malicious IP addresses, or disabling compromised credentials. Insider incidents might necessitate access revocations and physical security measures. Third-party breaches require coordination with vendors to understand exposure scope and containment status.

Evidence preservation supports both internal investigation and potential regulatory or legal proceedings. System logs, network captures, and affected data samples should be secured through forensically sound procedures. Chain of custody documentation becomes important if evidence is later needed for enforcement actions or litigation.

DPDPA Section 8(6) requires breach notification to the Data Protection Board and affected Data Principals, but the law does not specify notification thresholds or timelines as precisely as some other jurisdictions. This ambiguity requires organisations to make reasoned judgments about notification obligations based on incident circumstances.

Impact assessment considers multiple factors: the nature of compromised data (identification information, financial data, health records), the number of affected individuals, the likelihood of harm from the exposure, whether data was merely accessed or actually exfiltrated, and whether protective measures like encryption reduced exposure risk.

Notification determination involves legal analysis of statutory requirements combined with practical assessment of stakeholder expectations. Even where notification is not strictly legally required, business considerations may favour disclosure to maintain customer trust and control the narrative around the incident.

When notification is required, execution must balance speed with accuracy. Premature notification with incomplete information can cause unnecessary alarm and undermine credibility, while delayed notification may violate legal requirements and allow harm to compound.

Data Protection Board notification should include: description of the incident and data involved, approximate number of affected individuals, likely consequences of the breach, measures taken to address the breach, and contact information for further inquiries. The notification format and submission mechanism will be specified by Board procedures once operational.

Data Principal notification serves different purposes than regulatory notification. Affected individuals need actionable information: what happened to their data, what risks they face, what protective measures they should take, and how they can get more information. Notification should be direct, clear, and free of defensive legal language that obscures rather than informs.

Breach response does not conclude with notification. Remediation addresses both immediate incident effects and underlying vulnerabilities that enabled the breach. Post-incident review identifies lessons learned and drives improvements to prevent recurrence.

Immediate remediation may include: credit monitoring or identity protection services for affected individuals, enhanced monitoring for fraud or misuse of compromised data, system hardening to close exploited vulnerabilities, and expanded security controls to address identified weaknesses.

Post-incident review should examine: how the breach occurred and why existing controls failed, how the incident was detected and whether detection was timely, how response activities performed against plans, what communication worked well and what could improve, and what systemic changes would prevent similar incidents. This review should produce documented action items with assigned responsibility and timelines.