Mandate
A mandate is the instrument that turns responsibility into authority. It is short by design — two to three pages — because it is written to be read by executives and cited in disputes. Everything that changes often lives elsewhere: in the service catalogue, the procedures and the playbooks.
Why it exists
A SOC without a mandate can watch a host being encrypted and still have to find someone with the standing to authorise pulling it off the network. By the time that call connects, the containment window has closed. The mandate is what removes that phone call from the critical path.
It also does something less obvious but equally valuable: it bounds the SOC. A written out-of-scope column, with a named owner against each exclusion, is the defence against the slow accretion of work that turns a detection team into a second-line IT function.
Note the deliberate split in authorship. The security function drafts the powers it needs; only the business can grant them. A mandate approved by IT, or by the security function itself, binds nobody.
| Control field | Purpose | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Title | Names the instrument | Security Operations Centre (SOC) Mandate |
| Document number | Stable reference for citation and audit | e.g. SOC-MANDATE-001 |
| Version | Tracks revisions across reviews | 1.0 for the initial instrument |
| Approval date | The date the mandate enters into force | [approval date] |
| Valid until | Ties validity to review rather than to a calendar expiry | Until the review date |
| Prepared by | Author of the instrument | Chief Information Security Officer |
| Approved by | The body that can bind other departments to the SOC's authorities | Executive management |
| Signature block | Formal execution | [Name, Surname, Position], [Date] |
Section 2
Every authority below has a qualifying phrase that people are tempted to cut for brevity. Each of those phrases is the reason the authority works. Keep them.
Conduct continuous monitoring of the entire IT infrastructure — networks, servers, endpoint devices and cloud environments — to identify potential threats and security breaches in good time.
Why the wording matters
The grant is continuous and estate-wide. Naming the four environment classes explicitly is what prevents a later argument that cloud, or endpoints, were never in scope.
On a confirmed cybersecurity incident, take the technical actions necessary to contain the threat and limit its impact.
Why the wording matters
Two things make this clause work: the confirmed-incident precondition, which stops it being an open-ended power, and the enumerated action list framed as 'including, but not limited to', which stops it being read as exhaustive.
Obtain access to all system logs, configurations and other technical information required for incident investigation and analysis.
Why the wording matters
This authority is only real because of its second half: all IT and other units are obliged to cooperate and provide what the SOC requires. Without that obligation stated, the authority is a request.
Issue recommendations to the owners of IT infrastructure and systems on remediating security gaps, changing configurations and deploying additional security controls.
Why the wording matters
The word that carries the weight is 'mandatory'. A recommendation the recipient may ignore without record is not an authority — it is correspondence. Name the addressee: system owners, not 'IT'.
The enumerated containment actions
Keep the “including, but not limited to” framing. An exhaustive list is an invitation to argue that the specific action you took at 02:00 was not on it.
What you offer in return
Ask for pre-authorised containment and bring its conditions with you: the triggers that permit it, an immediate notification duty, a named approver informed after the fact, and a documented rollback. That package is what turns the request from a power grab into a control that a board can approve.
Section 4
The right-hand column is the one that gets skipped, and it is the more important of the two. Every exclusion must name the unit accountable instead — otherwise the exclusion reads as 'nobody', and it will come back to you.
Section 6
The SOC reports to the CISO and is accountable to them for its activity and its results. Everything else is collaboration — and each collaboration needs its subject matter named, or it will not happen under pressure.
| Counterpart | Subject matter |
|---|---|
| IT infrastructure and operations | Incident management, configuration changes, technical information |
| Legal and compliance | Legal aspects of incidents, data protection, cooperation with law enforcement |
| Human resources | Internal incidents involving employee conduct |
| The national cybersecurity centre (NKSC) | Statutory incident notification, national coordination, and requests for technical support. CERT-LT is the operational identity under which the same body acts as the national response team — one addressee, two names. |
| Peer organisations and sector groups | Threat information exchange and coordinated response to wide-scale incidents |
Section 7
A mandate that is never revisited slowly stops describing the organisation it governs. Write the triggers into the document so that review is an obligation rather than an intention.
Circulate before you submit
Send the draft to the units that acquire obligations under authorities 03 and 04 — IT infrastructure and operations, and the system owners — before it goes for approval. Those are the parties whose behaviour the mandate binds. Surprising them at the approval meeting is how a mandate gets diluted into uselessness.