本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

breach-documentation

Maintains the GDPR Article 33(5) breach register documenting all personal data breaches regardless of whether supervisory authority notification was required. Covers mandatory register fields including facts, effects, and remedial actions, retention periods, audit readiness, and integration with the accountability framework. Keywords: breach register, Article 33(5), breach documentation, accountability, audit readiness, remedial actions.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(5)

  • SKILL.md9.4 KB
  • assets/template.md3.5 KB
  • references/standards.md3.7 KB
  • references/workflows.md4.3 KB
  • scripts/process.py13.2 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Maintaining Breach Documentation Records

Overview

Article 33(5) of the GDPR requires every controller to document all personal data breaches, regardless of whether the breach triggered supervisory authority notification. The documentation must include "the facts relating to the personal data breach, its effects and the remedial action taken" and must "enable the supervisory authority to verify compliance with this Article." This creates a comprehensive breach register that serves as a primary accountability document under Art. 5(2).

Mandatory Documentation Requirements — Art. 33(5)

Facts Relating to the Breach

Every breach register entry must document:

FieldDescriptionExample
Breach reference numberUnique sequential identifierSPG-BREACH-2026-003
Discovery date and timeUTC timestamp when controller became aware13 March 2026, 14:30 UTC
Breach date and timeUTC timestamp of the breach itself (if different from discovery)13 March 2026, 11:15 UTC
Breach typeConfidentiality, integrity, availability, or combinedAvailability (primary), Confidentiality (under investigation)
Breach descriptionFactual narrative of what occurredLockBit 3.0 ransomware encrypted production customer database cluster. Attack vector: compromised service account obtained via spear-phishing.
Affected systemsSystems involved in the breachdb-prod-eu-west-01 through db-prod-eu-west-04
Data subject categoriesTypes of individuals affectedIndividual account holders, business account holders, joint account holders
Data subject countApproximate number of affected individuals15,230
Personal data categoriesTypes of data compromisedNames, postal addresses, emails, payment card last-4, transaction histories, account balances
Record countApproximate number of affected records48,720
Root causeIdentified cause of the breachStale privileged service account + phishing + push-fatigue MFA bypass
Containment timestampWhen the breach was contained13 March 2026, 12:45 UTC

Effects of the Breach

FieldDescriptionExample
Risk assessment scoreAggregate score from the risk assessment methodology18/24
Risk levelResulting risk determinationApproaching high risk
Actual harm identifiedAny confirmed harm to data subjectsNo confirmed harm as of assessment date
Potential harmLikely consequences if data is misusedFinancial fraud, identity theft, targeted phishing
Duration of impactHow long data subjects were affected36 hours (database unavailability); ongoing (potential confidentiality impact)

Remedial Actions Taken

FieldDescriptionExample
Containment measuresImmediate actions to stop the breachNetwork isolation, credential revocation, backup restoration
Remediation measuresLonger-term corrective actionsMFA upgrade to FIDO2, service account lifecycle management, network segmentation
Remediation statusCurrent status of each action4 of 7 measures completed; 3 in progress
Remediation deadlineTarget completion date15 June 2026

Notification Decision Documentation

Every breach entry must also record the notification decision and rationale:

FieldDescription
Art. 33 SA notification decisionRequired / Not required
Art. 33 notification rationaleWhy notification was or was not required (reference risk assessment)
Art. 33 notification dateDate and time of SA notification (if applicable)
SA reference numberReference number assigned by the supervisory authority
SA follow-up statusAny follow-up inquiries or actions from the authority
Art. 34 DS notification decisionRequired / Not required / Exempt under Art. 34(3)
Art. 34 notification rationaleWhy DS notification was or was not required
Art. 34 notification dateDate of DS communication (if applicable)
Art. 34 notification methodChannels used (email, postal, public communication)

Register Structure and Maintenance

Single Centralized Register

All breaches must be recorded in a single centralized register maintained by the DPO's office. Stellar Payments Group uses a dedicated module in the OneTrust Privacy Management Platform with the following access controls:

  • Write access: DPO, Deputy DPO, Privacy Incident Coordinator
  • Read access: CISO, General Counsel, Internal Audit, Board Audit Committee
  • No access: Business unit managers, IT operations staff (access to individual breach records provided on a need-to-know basis via separate reports)

All Breaches Documented — Including Non-Notifiable

The register must include every personal data breach, regardless of severity or whether SA/DS notification was triggered. This explicitly includes:

  • Misdirected emails containing personal data (even single-recipient incidents)
  • Temporary availability breaches resolved from backup
  • Unsuccessful exfiltration attempts where personal data was targeted but not accessed
  • Breaches at processors that affected the controller's data
  • Physical breaches (lost devices, unauthorized office access)

Retention Period

Breach register entries are retained for a minimum of 7 years from the date of breach closure. This accounts for:

  • The 5-year statute of limitations for GDPR enforcement actions in most EU member states
  • The need to demonstrate patterns (or absence of patterns) to supervisory authorities
  • Litigation time limits for data subject compensation claims under Art. 82

After the 7-year retention period, entries are anonymized (data subject counts retained, specific identifiers removed) and maintained indefinitely for trend analysis.

Audit Readiness

Supervisory Authority Access — Art. 33(5)

The breach register must be available to the supervisory authority "on request." Audit readiness requires:

  1. Instant availability: The register must be exportable in a structured format (CSV, JSON, PDF) within 24 hours of a supervisory authority request.
  2. Completeness verification: Monthly self-audit to verify all reported security incidents were assessed for personal data impact and, where applicable, added to the register.
  3. Cross-reference integrity: Each register entry must link to supporting documentation (risk assessment form, SA notification copy, DS notification copy, investigation report, remediation evidence).
  4. Trend reporting: The register must support generation of trend reports showing: breach frequency over time, breach types, root cause categories, notification rates, and remediation completion rates.

Annual Breach Register Review

The DPO conducts an annual review of the breach register covering:

  1. Completeness: Are all known breaches documented? Cross-reference against the security incident management system.
  2. Accuracy: Sample 20% of entries and verify accuracy against source documentation.
  3. Timeliness: Were entries created within 72 hours of breach discovery?
  4. Remediation closure: Are remediation actions tracked to completion? Flag overdue actions.
  5. Pattern identification: Are there recurring breach types or root causes indicating systemic issues?
  6. Board reporting: Prepare an annual breach summary report for the Board Audit Committee.

Integration with Other Records

Related RecordIntegration Point
Art. 30 RoPALink affected processing activities to the breach entry
DPIA RegisterUpdate DPIAs for affected processing activities with breach as risk event
Vendor RegisterUpdate processor risk assessment if breach originated at a processor
Training RecordsDocument post-breach training delivered to relevant personnel
Audit LogReference internal audit findings related to the breach
Insurance RecordsLink to cyber insurance claim reference (if applicable)

Common Documentation Deficiencies

  1. Breaches documented in security incident systems but not in the Art. 33(5) register: The security incident ticket is not a substitute for the breach register entry.
  2. Missing notification decision rationale: Recording "not notified" without documenting why the breach was assessed as unlikely to result in risk.
  3. Incomplete remediation tracking: Remedial actions listed but never updated to reflect completion status.
  4. Delayed documentation: Entries created weeks after the breach, making it difficult to demonstrate timely awareness and response.
  5. No processor breach entries: Breaches that occur at processors but affect the controller's data are not recorded in the controller's register.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Implements 42 CFR Part 2 protections for substance use disorder patient records. Covers written consent requirements stricter than HIPAA, re-disclosure prohibition, court order procedures, qualified service organization agreements, and 2024 amendments aligning Part 2 with HIPAA. Keywords: 42 CFR Part 2, substance use disorder, SUD records, re-disclosure, consent, Part 2 amendments.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Guides assessment of third-country adequacy decisions under GDPR Article 45 for international data transfers. Covers the current EC adequacy decisions list, adequacy assessment criteria, partial adequacy handling, and monitoring of adequacy decision reviews. Keywords: adequacy decision, Article 45, third country, adequate protection, EC adequacy list.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Implements age-gating mechanisms for online services to restrict access based on user age. Covers hard gates versus soft gates, neutral age prompts, re-verification triggers, circumvention prevention, and regulatory requirements under GDPR, COPPA, UK Online Safety Act, and DSA. Keywords: age gate, age restriction, neutral prompt, children, online services, access control.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Evaluates and implements age estimation and verification technologies for online services. Covers facial age estimation, digital ID verification, self-declaration with risk assessment, AI-based age estimation, and the accuracy versus privacy tradeoff. Includes ICO guidance and euCONSENT framework. Keywords: age verification, age estimation, facial analysis, digital ID, children, online safety.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Preparing EU AI Act compliance documentation for high-risk AI systems. Covers Annex III classification, technical documentation under Art. 11, conformity assessment, risk management systems, and CE marking requirements. Keywords: EU AI Act, high-risk AI, Annex III, conformity assessment, CE marking.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Implements GDPR Art. 22 automated decision-making and AI Act Art. 14 human oversight requirements for AI systems. Covers identification of solely automated decisions, meaningful human intervention design, logic explanation mechanisms, and contestation procedures. Keywords: Art. 22, automated decision, human oversight, AI Act, profiling, contestation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

mukul975 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する