ASOM-Fedv6.1Open the explorer
M11.01 · M11 Reconstitution · 1 of 11

Recovery Objective Declaration

What It Does

Declare, per mission service, how quickly it must return and how much data loss is survivable — before an incident forces the answer.

Observable indicator. Every mission service has a stated recovery objective its owner has signed.

Where It Sits

A technique is chosen from inside a form and emplaced on one layer. Both are the catalog’s own declarations; the position is counted in catalog order.

  • Form of maneuverM11 ReconstitutionRestore the mission on evidence, not on hope — and prove it before you need it.
  • Terrain layerT4 Applications and WorkloadsThe urban terrain. Key terrain: The public service portal, the case processing system, public APIs.
  • Position in the form1 of 11M11 carries 11 cataloged techniques; this is the 1st in catalog order.

Phases It Is Employed In

Employed in one phase of the campaign. A phase named here means at least this technique is live in it — not that the form it belongs to is the main effort.

  • Phase 0ShapeContinuous terrain preparation, zero-trust hardening, partnerships, threat intelligence.

Controls That Assess It

The controls the catalog names against this technique. They are what an assessor would test to establish that it is emplaced and working — the indicator above is what shows it is working, which is a different question.

  • RC-1 Recovery ObjectivesReconstitution and Recovery — To establish what recovery must achieve, so that restoration can succeed or fail rather than simply take however long it takes.
  • FO-5 Statutory Availability FloorFederal Obligations — To identify the point at which a defensive action becomes a legal one, so that degradation decisions are bounded before they are needed.
  • FO-7 Obligation Profile DeclarationFederal Obligations — To make the scope of the `FO` family an approved position, so that coverage figures are comparable and exclusions are decisions rather than silences.

In MITRE D3FEND

What this technique is called in MITRE’s countermeasure ontology. The join runs technique-to-technique: D3FEND catalogs countermeasures, and the thing with a countermeasure’s shape here is the technique, not the control.

That a technique reaches a D3FEND countermeasure says the two describe the same defensive act. It does not say the countermeasure is deployed, configured, or working — that is an assessment finding about your estate, not a property of the framework.

Related Techniques

The catalog declares no relation for this entry, and no other entry names it — the inverse is derived here, so an incoming edge would show up even though this one never declared it. The techniques below share its assessment surface, which is the nearest adjacency the data supports.

Assessed Alongside

Not a declared relation: these are the techniques whose assessing controls overlap this one’s, ranked by how much of the two assessment surfaces coincide. Showing 3 of 3 that share at least one control.