IAC-22: User Responsibilities for Account Management
Mechanisms exist to compel users to follow accepted practices in the use of authentication mechanisms (e.g., passwords, passphrases, physical or logical security tokens, smart cards and certificates).
Renumbered: Formerly IAC-18 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, IAC-22 was Account Lockout. That control is now CFG-04.1.
Control Question: Does the organization compel users to follow accepted practices in the use of authentication mechanisms (e.g., passwords, passphrases, physical or logical security tokens, smart cards and certificates)?
General (17)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| GovRAMP | IA-05(06) |
| GovRAMP Moderate | IA-05(06) |
| GovRAMP High | IA-05(06) |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 5.17 |
| ISO 27017 2015 | 9.2.4 9.3.1 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 5.17 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | IA-5(6) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | IA-05(06) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | IA-05(06) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | IA-05(06) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | IA-05(06) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | IA-05(06) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | IA-05(06) |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 8.3.11 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) | 8.3.11 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) | 8.3.11 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 8.3.11 |
US (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | IA-5(6) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | IA-05(06) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | IA-05(06) |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | IA-5(CE-6) |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | IA-05 (06) |
EMEA (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | IAM-09.05B IAM-09.01AC PSS-07.02B |
APAC (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-0421 ISM-0422 |
| APAC India RBI PPI 2025 | 16.3 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 16.4.37.C.01 16.4.38.C.02 |
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.
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 compel users to follow accepted practices in the use of authentication mechanisms (e.g., passwords, passphrases, physical or logical security tokens, smart cards and certificates).
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
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-22_A01 authenticators are protected commensurate with the security category of the information to which use of the authenticator permits access.
Evidence Requirements
- E-HRS-22 Rules of Behavior
-
Documented evidence of personnel management practices to define "acceptable use" or "rules of behavior" criteria that specify acceptable and unacceptable user behaviors.
Human Resources
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Educate users about their responsibility for account security
Small
- User acceptable use policy covering account responsibilities
Medium
- Formal user account responsibility policy
- Annual user acknowledgment
Large
- Enterprise acceptable use policy program
- User training on account responsibilities
Enterprise
- Enterprise security awareness program
- User account responsibility training
- Automated acknowledgment tracking