CHG-02: Configuration Change Control
Mechanisms exist to govern the technical configuration change control processes.
Control Question: Does the organization govern the technical configuration change control processes?
General (45)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC2.2-POF13 CC3.4 CC3.4-POF4 CC6.8-POF3 CC8.1 CC8.1-POF1 CC8.1-POF10 CC8.1-POF11 CC8.1-POF13 CC8.1-POF14 CC8.1-POF2 CC8.1-POF3 CC8.1-POF4 CC8.1-POF5 CC8.1-POF6 CC8.1-POF7 CC8.1-POF8 CC8.1-POF9 |
| COSO 2017 | Principle 9 |
| CSA CCM 4 | CCC-02 CCC-05 CEK-05 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | CCM-02 CCM-08 GVN-05 |
| ENISA 2.0 | SO14 |
| GovRAMP Low+ | CM-03 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | CM-03 |
| GovRAMP High | CM-03 |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 8.19 8.32 |
| ISO 27017 2015 | 12.1.2 14.2.2 |
| ISO 42001 2023 | 6.3 |
| MITRE ATT&CK 10 | T1021.005, T1059.006, T1176, T1195.003, T1213, T1213.001, T1213.002, T1495, T1542, T1542.001, T1542.003, T1542.004, T1542.005, T1543, T1543.002, T1547.007, T1547.011, T1547.013, T1553, T1553.006, T1564.008, T1601, T1601.001, T1601.002 |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.1 | TS-2.6 |
| NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 | PR.PO-P2 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | CM-3 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) | CM-3 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (high) | CM-3 |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | CM-3 SA-8(31) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | CM-3 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | CM-3 |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) | SA-8(31) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | CM-3 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | CM-3 |
| NIST 800-160 | 3.4.10 3.4.13 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | CM-3 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Flow Down | CM-3 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | CM-3 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 | CM-3 |
| NIST 800-171 R2 (source) | 3.4.3 |
| NIST 800-171A (source) | 3.4.3[a] 3.4.3[b] 3.4.3[c] 3.4.3[d] |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.04.02.b 03.04.03.a 03.04.03.b 03.04.03.c |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.04.03.a A.03.04.03.c[01] |
| NIST 800-207 | NIST Tenet 5 |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | ID.RA-07 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 1.2.2 6.5 6.5.1 6.5.6 12.4.2 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) | 1.2.2 6.5.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) | 6.5.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) | 1.2.2 6.5.1 6.5.6 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 1.2.2 6.5.1 6.5.6 12.4.2 |
| TISAX ISA 6 | 5.2.1 |
| SCF CORE Fundamentals | CHG-02 |
| SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) | CHG-02 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational | CHG-02 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure | CHG-02 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats | CHG-02 |
US (19)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US C2M2 2.1 | ASSET-4.B.MIL1 ASSET-4.E.MIL2 |
| US CERT RMM 1.2 | ADM:SG3.SP2 TM:SG4.SP2 TM:SG4.SP3 |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 2 (source) | CM.L2-3.4.3 |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 3 (source) | CM.L2-3.4.3 |
| US CMS MARS-E 2.0 | CM-3 |
| US DHS CISA TIC 3.0 | 3.UNI.CMANA |
| US FDA 21 CFR Part 11 | 11.10 11.10(k) 11.10(k)(1) 11.10(k)(2) |
| US FedRAMP R4 | CM-3 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | CM-3 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | CM-3 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | CM-3 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) | CM-3 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | CM-3 |
| US FFIEC | D1.G.IT.B.4 |
| US GLBA CFR 314 2023 (source) | 314.4(c)(7) |
| US IRS 1075 | CM-3 |
| US NISPOM 2020 | 8-103 8-104 8-311 8-610 |
| US - CA CCPA 2025 | 7123(c)(4)(C) 7123(c)(5)(D) 7123(c)(5)(E) |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | CM-3 |
EMEA (11)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.4.4(37) 3.6.3(75) 3.6.3(76) |
| EMEA EU DORA | 9.4(e) |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex | 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.2 |
| EMEA Germany Banking Supervisory Requirements for IT (BAIT) | 8.5 |
| EMEA Germany C5 2020 | DEV-08 |
| EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 | 10.6 14.7 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 | 1-6-3-5 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 | 1-5 1-5-1 1-5-2 1-5-3 1-5-3-1 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 | TPC-73 |
| EMEA Spain BOE-A-2022-7191 | 21.1 |
| EMEA Spain 311/2022 | 21.1 |
APAC (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2024 | ISM-1211 |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF | PR.IP.S3 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 12.1.2 12.1.2.11.PB 14.2.2 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF 2022 | HHSP18 HML18 HSUP16 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF Suppliers 2023 | HSUP16 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 | 6.3.6.C.02 6.3.7.C.01 6.3.7.C.02 6.3.7.C.03 |
Americas (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada CSAG | 4.18 4.20 |
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 | 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.3 |
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 | 03.04.02.B 03.04.03.A 03.04.03.B 03.04.03.C |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to govern the technical configuration change control processes.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
Change Management (CHG) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Govern changes to systems, applications and services to ensure their stability, reliability and predictability. o Notify stakeholders about proposed changes.
- IT personnel use an informal process to:
- Logical Access Control (LAC) limits the ability of non-administrators from making unauthorized configuration changes to systems, applications and services.
- Requests for Change (RFC) are submitted to IT personnel.
- prior to changes being made, RFCs are informally reviewed for cybersecurity and data privacy ramifications.
- Whenever possible, IT personnel test changes to business-critical systems/services/applications on a similarly configured IT environment as that of Production, prior to widespread production release of the change.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Change Management (CHG) efforts are requirements-driven and governed at a local/regional level, but are not consistent across the organization. CMM Level 2 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Change management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
- IT/cybersecurity personnel identify cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for change management.
- Changes are tracked through a centralized technology solution to submit, review, approve and assign Requests for Change (RFC).
- A Change Advisory Board (CAB), or similar function, exists to govern changes to systems, applications and services to ensure their stability, reliability and predictability.
- A CAB, or similar function, reviews RFCs for cybersecurity and data privacy ramifications.
- A CAB, or similar function, notifies stakeholders to ensure awareness of the impact of proposed changes.
- Logical Access Control (LAC) limits the ability of non-administrators from making unauthorized configuration changes to systems, applications and services.
- Cybersecurity controls are tested after a change is implemented to ensure cybersecurity controls are operating properly.
- Asset custodians are assigned responsibilities that cover change management duties, including privileged access to perform change management actions.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Change Management (CHG) efforts are standardized across the organization and centrally managed, where technically feasible, to ensure consistency. CMM Level 3 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Exists to govern changes to systems, applications and services to ensure their stability, reliability and predictability. o Reviews RFC for cybersecurity and data privacy ramifications. o Notifies stakeholders to ensure awareness of the impact of proposed changes.
- An IT Asset Management (ITAM) function, or similar function, ensures compliance with requirements for asset management.
- ITAM leverages a Configuration Management Database (CMDB), or similar tool, as the authoritative source of IT assets.
- Logical Access Control (LAC) is governed to limit the ability of non-administrators from making configuration changes to systems, applications and services.
- A formal Change Management (CM) program ensures that no unauthorized changes are made, that all changes are documented, that services are not disrupted and that resources are used efficiently.
- The CM function has formally defined roles and associated responsibilities.
- Changes are tracked through a centralized technology solution to submit, review, approve and assign Requests for Change (RFC).
- A Change Advisory Board (CAB), or similar function:
- IT personnel use dedicated development/test/staging environments to deploy and evaluate changes, wherever technically possible.
- Asset custodians are assigned responsibilities that cover change management duties, including privileged access to perform change management actions.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Change Management (CHG) efforts are metrics driven and provide sufficient management insight (based on a quantitative understanding of process capabilities) to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and identify areas for improvement. In addition to CMM Level 3 criteria, CMM Level 4 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
- Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
- Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
- Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
- Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
- Both business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
See C|P-CMM4. There are no defined C|P-CMM5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to govern the technical configuration change control processes.
Assessment Objectives
- CHG-02_A01 changes to the system are reviewed.
- CHG-02_A02 changes to the system are approved or disapproved.
- CHG-02_A03 approved configuration-controlled changes to the system are implemented.
- CHG-02_A04 changes to the system are logged.
- CHG-02_A05 changes to the system are tracked.
- CHG-02_A06 the types of changes to the system that are configuration-controlled are defined.
Evidence Requirements
- E-CHG-02 Charter - Change Control Board (CCB)
-
Documented evidence of the organization's Change Control Board (CCB) charter and mission to govern the organization's change control processes.
Change Management - E-CHG-05 Change Control Records
-
Documented evidence of change control records.
Change Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Change Control Board (CCB)
- Configuration Management Database (CMDB)
- VisibleOps (https://itpi.org)
- ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com)
Small
- Change Control Board (CCB)
- Configuration Management Database (CMDB)
- VisibleOps (https://itpi.org)
- ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com)
Medium
- Change Control Board (CCB)
- Configuration Management Database (CMDB)
- VisibleOps (https://itpi.org)
- ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com)
Large
- Change Control Board (CCB)
- Configuration Management Database (CMDB)
- VisibleOps (https://itpi.org)
- ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com)
Enterprise
- Change Control Board (CCB)
- Configuration Management Database (CMDB)
- VisibleOps (https://itpi.org)
- ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com)