IAO-14: Security Authorization
Mechanisms exist to ensure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) are officially authorized prior to "go live" in a production environment.
Renumbered: Formerly IAO-07 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization ensure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) are officially authorized prior to "go live" in a production environment?
General (27)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC6.1-POF9 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | IOT-01 |
| GovRAMP | CA-06 |
| GovRAMP Low | CA-06 |
| GovRAMP Low+ | CA-06 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | CA-06 |
| GovRAMP High | CA-06 |
| IMO Maritime Cyber Risk Management | 3.5.3.3 |
| ISO 42001 2023 | A.6.2.5 |
| NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 | MANAGE 1.1 |
| NIST 800-37 R2 | TASK P-18 TASK R-1 TASK R-2 TASK R-4 TASK R-5 TASK M-4 TASK M-6 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | CA-6 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | CA-06 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | CA-06 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | CA-06 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | CA-06 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (privacy) (source) | CA-06 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | CA-06 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | CA-06 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | CA-06 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | CA-06 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | CA-6 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline | CA-6 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 1 | CA-6 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | CA-6 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 | CA-6 |
| SCF DPMP 2026 | 7.11 |
US (14)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | CA-6 CA-6.a CA-6.b CA-6.b.1 CA-6.b.2 CA-6.b.3 CA-6.b.4 CA-6.b.5 CA-6.b.6 CA-6.c CA-6.c.1 CA-6.c.2 CA-6.c.3 CA-6.c.4 CA-6.c.5 CA-6.c.6 |
| USA Federal CISA CPG 2022 | 2.Q |
| USA Federal DoW BaTB OT 2026 | 10 |
| USA Federal NNPI (unclass) 2010 | 11-3.a(3)(c) |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | CA-6 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) | CA-06 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | CA-06 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | CA-06 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) | CA-06 |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | CA-6 |
| USA California CCPA 2025 | 7123(c)(4)(C) |
| USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 | CA-06 CA-06-SID |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 1 | CA-06 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | CA-06 |
EMEA (10)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany BAIT 2017 | 7.11 |
| EMEA Spain Royal Decree 311 2022 | Article 21(1) |
| EMEA EU Cyber Resiliency Act 2024 | Article 13(2) |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 15.3(g) Article 16.2(a) Article 37.1(b) |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.4.6.42 3.6.2.69 3.6.2.70 |
| EMEA UK CAP 1850 2020 | A2 |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 | 3.6.2-70 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 2-13-4 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 | 1-4-1-2 1-5-3-3 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 2022 | VII.B.TPC-72 VII.B.TPC-73 |
APAC (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia CCM 2026 | GOV-05 |
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-0027 ISM-0293 ISM-1525 ISM-1968 |
| APAC India RBI Digital Payments 2021 | 28.0 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 2.2.5.C.01 4.2.11.C.01 4.5.18.C.01 4.5.18.C.02 4.5.18.C.03 20.1.21.C.04 20.1.22.C.01 20.1.22.C.03 20.1.22.C.05 23.2.16.C.03 23.2.16.C.04 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 5.7.6 |
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
Information Assurance (IAO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Pre-production security testing-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain an informal process to conduct limited control testing of High Value Assets (HVAs) to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing. ▪ IAP testing results in a formal risk assessment where Business process owners (BPOs) are required to make a decision to (1) reduce, (2) avoid, (3) transfer and/or (4) accept risk(s) on behalf of the organization.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment software). ▪ 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 IAO 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 ensure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) are officially authorized prior to "go live" in a production environment.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IAO) 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
- IAO-14_A01 the frequency at which to update the authorizations is defined.
- IAO-14_A02 a senior official is assigned as the authorizing official for the system.
- IAO-14_A03 the authorizations are updated organization-defined frequency.
- IAO-14_A04 a senior official is assigned as the authorizing official for common controls available for inheritance by organizational systems.
- IAO-14_A05 before commencing operations, the authorizing official for the system accepts the use of common controls inherited by the system.
- IAO-14_A06 before commencing operations, the authorizing official for the system authorizes the system to operate.
- IAO-14_A07 the authorizing official for common controls authorizes the use of those controls for inheritance by organizational systems.
Evidence Requirements
- E-IAO-06 Security Authorization Records
-
Documented evidence of security authorization decisions (e.g., Authorization To Operate (ATO)) for in-scope Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
Information Assurance
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Owner approval before new systems go live
Small
- Go-live approval checklist including security review
Medium
- Formal authorization to operate before production (Authorizing Official sign-off)
- Security Assessment Report (SAR) input
Large
- Security authorization process (e.g., RMF-based) with documented authorization decisions
- Authorization tracked in GRC
Enterprise
- Enterprise security authorization program (RMF/ATO) with continuous authorization
- GRC platform authorization workflows