Skip to main content

CPL-07.2: Periodic Audits

CPL 8 — High Detect

Mechanisms exist to conduct periodic audits of security, compliance and resilience controls to evaluate conformity with the organization's documented policies, standards and procedures.

Renumbered: Formerly CPL-02.2 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization conduct periodic audits of security, compliance and resilience controls to evaluate conformity with its documented policies, standards and procedures?

General (5)
Framework Mapping Values
COBIT 2019 MEA02.04
CSA CCM 4.1.0 A&A-02
ISO/SAE 21434 2021 RQ-05-17
ISO 27701 2025 9.2.2
ISO 29100 2024 6.12
US (4)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 IV.A.2.d
USA Federal 33 CFR Part 101 Subpart F 101.625(d)(3)
USA Federal FCA CRM 2023 609.930(c)(6)
USA Nevada NOGE Reg 5 2024 5.260.5(b)
EMEA (10)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 Article 28.5 Article 36.1 Article 36.2
EMEA EU GDPR 2016 Article 32.1(d)
EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 2.3.2 2.3.4
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2024 1206
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L2 2024 1206
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L3 2024 1206
EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 3.3.6-25 3.3.6-26 3.4.6-41
EMEA LUX CCSF 22/806 2022 13.b 14.a 40.d.iii 52.a 93
EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 1-7-1
EMEA Saudi Arabia SAMA CSF 1.0 2017 3.2.5.2
APAC (6)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC India DPDPA 2023 10(2)(c)(ii)
APAC India RBI PA 2025 III.9.d Annex 1.1.1 Annex 2.Annual.2
APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 DE.CM.S5
APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 13.2
APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 17.9.33.C.01 17.9.33.C.02 17.9.33.C.03
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 15.1.3
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Argentina Reg 132 2018 E.1.4-DS-2

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Compliance (CPL) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an entity-defined set of controls to conduct cybersecurity and data protection control assessments. ▪ Specialized assessments are conducted for specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual compliance obligations, as well as business-critical TAASD. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity use an impartial member of its team or a third-party assessor to perform an independent assessment of cybersecurity and data protection controls.

Level 3 — Well Defined

Compliance (CPL) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to conduct periodic audits of security, compliance and resilience controls to evaluate conformity with the organization's documented policies, standards and procedures.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Compliance (CPL) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ 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. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.

Level 5 — Continuously Improving

Compliance (CPL) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.

Assessment Objectives

  1. CPL-07.2_A01 the organization conducts formal audits of cybersecurity & data protection controls, per an organization-defined frequency, for conformity with the organization's policies, standards and procedures.
  2. CPL-07.2_A02 responsibility for conducting conformity assessments is assigned to designated personnel or roles.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Annual self-assessment against applicable compliance requirements
  • External compliance review if contractually required

Small

  • Annual internal review of key security controls
  • External audit for compliance requirements

Medium

  • Internal audit program
  • Annual external compliance audits
  • GRC platform for audit tracking.

Large

  • Enterprise internal audit function
  • Annual external audits.
  • GRC platform with audit management

Enterprise

  • Enterprise internal audit program with dedicated resources
  • Multiple external compliance audits
  • Continuous control monitoring and automated audit reporting

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.