IAC-06: Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
Mechanisms exist to enforce Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) to restrict access to individuals assigned specific roles with legitimate business needs.
Renumbered: Formerly IAC-08 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, IAC-06 was Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA). That control is now IAC-37.
Control Question: Does the organization enforce Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) to restrict access to individuals assigned specific roles with legitimate business needs?
General (44)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC5.2-POF3 CC6.1 CC6.1-POF12 CC6.1-POF13 CC6.3 CC6.3-POF3 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 | 3.3 6.0 6.8 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG1 | 3.3 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 | 3.3 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 | 3.3 6.8 |
| COBIT 2019 | DSS05.04 |
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | IAM-09 IAM-10 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | IAM-16 MON-04 |
| GovRAMP | AC-02(07) |
| GovRAMP Core | AC-02(07) |
| GovRAMP Low+ | AC-02(07) |
| GovRAMP Moderate | AC-02(07) |
| GovRAMP High | AC-02(07) |
| IEC 62443-2-1 2024 | USER 1.5 |
| IEC 62443-3-3 2013 | SR 2.1 RE 2 |
| IEC 62443-4-2 2019 | CR 2.1 CR 2.1(1) CR 2.1(2) |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 5.15 8.3 |
| ISO 27017 2015 | 9.1.1 9.1.2 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 5.15 8.3 |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 | TS-1.7 TS-1.8 TS-1.10 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | AC-2(7) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | AC-02(07) |
| NIST SP 800-66 R2 | 164.308(a)(3) 164.308(a)(4) 164.312(a) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | AC-02(07) |
| NIST 800-171 R2 (source) | 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.01.01.c.01 03.01.01.c.02 03.01.01.c.03 03.01.02 03.01.05.b 03.01.06.a 03.01.12.a 03.03.08.b 03.04.05 03.06.05.d 03.07.06.a |
| NIST 800-171A (source) | 3.1.3[c] |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.01.01.c.01 A.03.01.01.c.02 A.03.01.01.c.03 A.03.01.02[01] A.03.01.02[02] A.03.01.05.ODP[01] A.03.01.05.ODP[02] A.03.01.05.b[01] A.03.01.05.b[02] A.03.01.06.a A.03.01.12.a[02] A.03.03.08.b A.03.04.05[04] A.03.06.05.d A.03.07.06.a |
| NIST 800-172 R3 | 03.01.11E |
| NIST 800-172A R3 | DS-A.03.01.11E.a DS-A.03.01.11E.b |
| NIST 800-207 | NIST Tenet 3 NIST Tenet 4 |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | PR.AA-05 |
| OWASP Top 10 2025 | A01:2025 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 1.3 7.1 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.5 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) | 7.2.2 7.2.5 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B (source) | 7.2.2 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B-IP (source) | 7.2.2 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) | 7.2.2 7.2.5 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C-VT (source) | 7.2.2 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) | 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.5 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.5 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 |
| SCF DPMP 2026 | 7.1 |
| SWIFT CSF 2025 | 1.2 5.1 |
| TISAX ISA 6.0.3 | 4.2.1 |
US (24)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | AC-2(7) AC-2(7).a AC-2(7).b AC-2(7).c AC-2(7).d |
| USA Federal CISA CPG 2022 | 2.E 2.L |
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | ACCESS-1g ACCESS-2b ARCHITECTURE-3c |
| USA Federal DoW BaTB OT 2026 | 1 |
| USA Federal CERT RMM 1.2 | AM:SG1.SP1 |
| USA Federal CMMC 2.0 Level 1 | AC.L1-B.1.I AC.L1-B.1.II |
| USA Federal CMMC 2.0 Level 2 | ACL2.-3.1.1 ACL2.-3.1.2 ACL2.-3.1.3 |
| USA Federal CMMC 2.0 Level 3 | AC.L3-3.1.2E |
| USA Federal DoD Zero Trust Execution Roadmap v1.1 | 1.2 |
| USA Federal FAR 52.204-21 | 52.204-21(b)(1)(i) 52.204-21(b)(1)(ii) |
| USA Federal 21 CFR Part 11 2025 | 11.10 11.10(d) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | AC-02(07) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | AC-02(07) |
| USA Federal 45 CFR 155.260 | 155.260(a)(4)(ii) |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | 2.D.6 |
| USA Federal GLBA CFR 314 2023 | 314.4(c)(1)(ii) |
| USA Federal HIPAA Security Rule NIST SP 800-66 R2 | § 164.308(a)(3)(i) § 164.308(a)(3)(ii)(A) § 164.308(a)(4)(ii)(C) § 164.312(a)(1) |
| USA Federal HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 | § 164.308(a)(3)(i) § 164.308(a)(3)(ii)(A) § 164.308(a)(4)(ii)(C) § 164.312(a)(1) § 164.514(d)(2)(i)(A) § 164.514(d)(2)(i)(B) § 164.514(d)(2)(ii) § 164.530(c)(2)(ii) |
| USA Federal NERC CIP 2024 | CIP-004-7 4.1 |
| USA California CCPA 2025 | 7123(c)(3)(A) 7123(c)(3)(A)(i) 7123(c)(3)(A)(ii) 7123(c)(3)(A)(iii) 7123(c)(3)(B) |
| USA Massachusetts 201 CMR 17.00 2008 | 17.04(2)(a) |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.7(a)(1) |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | AC-02 (07) |
| USA Vermont Act 171 2018 | 2447(c)(2)(A) 2447(c)(2)(B) |
EMEA (15)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA CHE FINMA Circular 2023/1 | IV.D-78 |
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | OIS-04.01B.1 OIS-04.04B HR-01.01B OPS-19.01B.6 OPS-34.02B.5 IAM-01.01B.1 IAM-01.02B.4 IAM-01.02B.5 DEV-08.01B PSS-01.02B.6 PSS-08.01B PSS-09.01AC |
| EMEA Germany FDPA 2017 | 2.1.2.27(1) 3.2.48(2)4 |
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | op.acc.2 |
| EMEA Spain Royal Decree 311 2022 | Article 17 |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.4.2.32 |
| EMEA EU GDPR 2016 | Article 32.4 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 11.2.2(a) 11.2.2(d) 11.4.1 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2024 | 2200 2206 2422 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L1 2024 | 2200 2206 2422 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L2 2024 | 2200 2206 2422 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L3 2024 | 2200 2206 2422 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 2-2-1 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 | 2-2-3-3 2-6-3-2 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 2022 | VII.B.TPC-34 |
APAC (10)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia Essential 8 2024 | ISM-1688 |
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-1688 ISM-1746 ISM-1852 ISM-2092 ISM-2093 |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 | PR.AA.S3 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 8.1.2.5 9.4 9.4.1 9.4.1.1 9.4.1.2 9.4.1.3 9.4.1.4 9.4.1.5 9.4.1.6 9.4.1.7 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 10.56 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF Microsmall 2023 | HMS07 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF MLHSP 2023 | HHSP40 HHSP42 HML40 HML42 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF Suppliers 2023 | HSUP04 HSUP37 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 9.2.11.C.01 9.2.11.C.02 16.2.4.C.01 16.2.5.C.01 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 9.1.7 |
Americas (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Argentina Reg 132 2018 | B.1.2-3 |
| Americas Bermuda BMACCC 2020 | 6.6 |
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.01.01.C.01 03.01.01.C.02 03.01.01.C.03 03.01.02 03.01.05.B 03.01.06.A 03.01.12.A 03.03.08.B 03.04.05 03.06.05.D 03.07.06.A |
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements. ▪ Active Directory (AD), or a similar technologies, are used to centrally manage identities and permissions, but asset/process owners are authorized to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Logical Access Control (LAC) limits the ability of non-administrators from making unauthorized configuration changes to systems, applications and services.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC). ▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts. ▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services. ▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS. ▪ IAM restricts the assignment of privileged accounts to entity-defined personnel and/or roles (privilege assignment requires management approval).
Level 3 — Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) solution). ▪ 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 IAC 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 enforce Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) for TAASD to restrict access to individuals assigned specific roles with legitimate business needs.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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
- IAC-06_A01 the organization implements a role-based access scheme or an attribute-based access scheme.
- IAC-06_A02 privileged user accounts are established and administered in accordance with organization-defined parameters.
- IAC-06_A03 access to sensitive / regulated data requiring special protection is granted only to individuals who have a valid access authorization that is demonstrated by assigned duties.
- IAC-06_A04 access to sensitive / regulated data requiring special protection is granted only to individuals who satisfy associated personnel security criteria.
- IAC-06_A05 access to sensitive / regulated data requiring special protection is granted only to individuals who have read, understood and signed a non-disclosure agreement.
- IAC-06_A06 privileged role or attribute assignments are monitored.
- IAC-06_A07 changes to roles or attributes are monitored.
- IAC-06_A08 access is revoked when privileged role or attribute assignments are no longer appropriate.
- IAC-06_A09 security functions for authorized access are defined.
- IAC-06_A10 security-relevant information for authorized access is defined.
- IAC-06_A11 access to <A.03.01.05.ODP[01]: security functions> is authorized.
- IAC-06_A12 access to <A.03.01.05.ODP[02]: security-relevant information> is authorized.
- IAC-06_A13 logical access restrictions associated with changes to the system are defined and documented.
- IAC-06_A14 the incident response plan is protected from unauthorized disclosure.
Evidence Requirements
- E-IAC-02 Defined Roles & Authorizations (RBAC)
-
Documented evidence of defined access control-specific roles (e.g., Role Based Access Control (RBAC)) that affect both logical and physical access authorizations.
Identity & Access Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
Small
- Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
Medium
- Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
Large
- Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
Enterprise
- Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)