IAC-12: Periodic Review of Individual & Service Account Privileges
Mechanisms exist to periodically-review the privileges assigned to individuals and service accounts to validate the need for such privileges and reassign or remove unnecessary privileges, as necessary.
Renumbered: Formerly IAC-17 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, IAC-12 was Cryptographic Module Authentication. That control is now IAC-38.
Control Question: Does the organization periodically-review the privileges assigned to individuals and service accounts to validate the need for such privileges and reassign or remove unnecessary privileges, as necessary?
General (27)
US (15)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | CM-5(5).b |
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | ACCESS-1e ACCESS-2b ACCESS-2h |
| USA Federal CERT RMM 1.2 | AM:SG1.SP3 AM:SG1.SP4 |
| USA Federal DoD Zero Trust Execution Roadmap v1.1 | 1.7.1 |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | AC-6(7) |
| USA Federal 21 CFR Part 11 2025 | 11.10(g) |
| USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 | II.C.7.b II.C.15.b |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | AC-06(07) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | AC-06(07) |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | AC-6(CE-7).a AC-6(CE-7).b |
| USA Federal HIPAA Security Rule NIST SP 800-66 R2 | § 164.308(a)(3)(ii)(B) |
| USA Federal HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 | § 164.308(a)(3)(ii)(B) |
| USA Federal NERC CIP 2024 | CIP-004-7 4.3 CIP-004-7 6.2 CIP-004-7 6.2.1 CIP-004-7 6.2.2 |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.7(a)(1) 500.7(a)(4) |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | AC-06 (07) |
EMEA (13)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA CHE FINMA Circular 2023/1 | IV.D-78 |
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | AM-02.05B OPS-19.01B.9 IAM-01.02B.9 IAM-01.03B IAM-02.02B.2 IAM-05.01B IAM-05.02B IAM-05.03B IAM-05.01AC PSS-08.03B PSS-08.04B |
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | op.acc.2 op.acc.4 op.acc.5 |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 21.1(e)(iv) Article 33.1(f) |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.4.2.31(e) 3.4.2.31(f) |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 11.2.3 11.3.3 11.5.4 |
| EMEA UK Cyber Essentials 3.3 | 2-BP1 |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 | 3.4.2-31.f |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 1-8-2 2-2-3 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 2-2-2 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 | 2-2-3-5 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 | 2-2-1-10 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 2022 | VII.B.TPC-33 |
APAC (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia Essential 8 2024 | ISM-1647 ISM-1648 |
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-0405 ISM-1647 ISM-1648 |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 | PR.AA.S5 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 9.2.2.7 9.2.5 9.2.5.1 9.2.5.2 9.2.5.3 9.2.5.4 9.2.5.5 9.2.5.6 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 10.56 A7-D2(c)(iv) A10-B9(b) |
| APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 | 5.2.2 12.2.3 12.2.4 |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.01.01.G.03 03.01.05.C 03.01.05.D 03.10.01.C 03.10.01.D |
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.
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 inventories all privileged accounts and validates that each person with elevated privileges is authorized by the appropriate level of organizational management.
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 periodically-review the privileges assigned to individuals and service accounts to validate the need for such privileges and reassign or remove unnecessary privileges, as necessary.
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
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Assessment Objectives
- IAC-12_A01 the frequency at which to review the privileges assigned to roles or classes of users is defined.
- IAC-12_A02 roles or classes of users to which privileges are assigned are defined.
- IAC-12_A03 the privileges assigned to roles or classes of users are reviewed <A.03.01.05.ODP[03]: frequency> to validate the need for such privileges.
- IAC-12_A04 privileges are reassigned or removed, as necessary.
Evidence Requirements
- E-HRS-12 Role Review
-
Documented evidence of a formal review process to ensure personnel roles currently reflect business needs.
Human Resources - E-IAC-01 Access Permission Review
-
Documented evidence of periodic access permission reviews.
Identity & Access Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Annual review of user access rights
Small
- Periodic (at least annual) review of all user account privileges
Medium
- Formal quarterly/annual account privilege review process
Large
- Enterprise access certification program with automated review campaigns
Enterprise
- Enterprise IGA platform (e.g., SailPoint, Saviynt, IBM Security Verify)
- Automated access certification
- Continuous access review