Skip to main content

CPL-04: Audit Activities

CPL 5 — Medium Identify

Mechanisms exist to thoughtfully plan audits by including input from operational risk and compliance partners to minimize the impact of audit-related activities on business operations.

Control Question: Does the organization thoughtfully plan audits by including input from operational risk and compliance partners to minimize the impact of audit-related activities on business operations?

General (7)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC4.1
COSO 2017 Principle 16
CSA CCM 4 A&A-05
ISO 27002 2022 5.35 8.34
ISO 27017 2015 12.7.1
NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 GOVERN 1.5
NIST 800-160 3.4.9
US (1)
Framework Mapping Values
US TSA / DHS 1580/82-2022-01 IV.C.2.a IV.C.2.b IV.C.2.c IV.C.2.d IV.C.2.e IV.C.2.e.i IV.C.2.e.ii IV.C.2.e.iii IV.C.2.e.iv IV.C.2.f
EMEA (2)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA EU PSD2 3
EMEA Germany C5 2020 COM-02 COM-03
APAC (1)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Japan ISMAP 4.6.1 12.7.1

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to thoughtfully plan audits by including input from operational risk and compliance partners to minimize the impact of audit-related activities on business operations.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Compliance (CPL) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • IT personnel use an informal process to govern statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations.
  • IT personnel self-identify a set of controls that are used to conduct cybersecurity and data privacy control assessments.
  • IT personnel perform internal assessments of cybersecurity and data protection controls to determine compliance status.
  • IT personnel use an informal process to notify stakeholders about audit activities to minimize the impact of audit/assessment activities on business operations.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Compliance (CPL) 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:

  • Compliance activities are 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 compliance activities.
  • Cybersecurity personnel use a defined set of controls to conduct cybersecurity and data privacy control assessments, as defined by the applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
  • Cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to notify stakeholders about audit activities to minimize the impact of audit activities on business operations.
Level 3 — Well Defined

Compliance (CPL) 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 Ensures data/process owners understand their requirements to manage applicable cybersecurity and data protection controls through oversight and written guidance. o Provides applicable stakeholders with status reports on control execution to enable security controls oversight. o Works with data/process owners and asset custodians to document and validate the scope of cybersecurity and data protection controls to ensure statutory, regulatory and/ or contractual compliance obligations are met. o Conducts cybersecurity and data privacy control assessments, on a regular cadence that is defined by the applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.

  • A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) function, or similar function, provides governance oversight for the implementation of applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual cybersecurity and data protection controls to ensure compliance requirements are identified and documented.
  • The GRC function, or similar function:
  • Cybersecurity and data privacy controls are centrally managed through a technology solution (e.g., GRC solution) to assign controls, track control activities and report on compliance efforts.
  • Cybersecurity personnel use an defined process to notify stakeholders about audit activities to minimize the impact of audit activities on business operations.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

See C|P-CMM3. There are no defined C|P-CMM4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to thoughtfully plan audits by including input from operational risk and compliance partners to minimize the impact of audit-related activities on business operations.

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 thoughtfully plan audits by including input from operational risk and compliance partners to minimize the impact of audit-related activities on business operations.

Assessment Objectives

  1. CPL-04_A01 an internal audit function formally defines audit-related priorities for the organization.
  2. CPL-04_A02 audits are thoughtfully planned to minimize the impact of audit-related activities on business operations.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Internal audit program

Small

  • Internal audit program

Medium

  • Internal audit program

Large

  • Internal audit program

Enterprise

  • Internal audit program

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.