Skip to main content

MON-02: Centralized Collection of Security Event Logs

MON 10 — Critical Detect

Mechanisms exist to utilize a Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM), or similar automated tool, to support the centralized collection of security-related event logs.

Control Question: Does the organization utilize a Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM) or similar automated tool, to support the centralized collection of security-related event logs?

General (51)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC7.2 CC7.2-POF1 CC7.3
CIS CSC 8.1 3.14 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.12 13.1
CIS CSC 8.1 IG1 8.1 8.2 8.3
CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 13.1
CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 3.14 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.12 13.1
COBIT 2019 DSS06.05
CSA CCM 4 LOG-03
CSA IoT SCF 2 CLS-08 MON-07
ENISA 2.0 SO17 SO20 SO21
GovRAMP Core SI-04
GovRAMP Low AU-02 AU-06 SI-04
GovRAMP Low+ AU-02 AU-06 SI-04
GovRAMP Moderate AU-02 AU-06 SI-04
GovRAMP High AU-02 AU-06 SI-04
ISO 27002 2022 8.15
MPA Content Security Program 5.1 TS-1.5 TS-1.11
NIST 800-53 R4 AU-2 AU-2(3) AU-6 IR-4(4) SI-4
NIST 800-53 R4 (low) AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) AU-2 AU-2(3) AU-6 SI-4
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) AU-2 AU-2(3) AU-6 SI-4
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) AU-2 AU-6 IR-4(4) SI-4
NIST 800-53B R5 (privacy) (source) AU-2
NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) AU-2 AU-6 IR-4(4) SI-4
NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay AU-2 AU-6 IR-4(4) SI-4
NIST 800-161 R1 AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
NIST 800-161 R1 Flow Down AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 1 AU-2 SI-4
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) 3.3.1 3.3.3 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.3.8 3.3.9
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.03.05.a 03.03.05.c
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.03.05.ODP[01] A.03.03.05.a A.03.03.05.c[01]
NIST 800-207 NIST Tenet 5 NIST Tenet 7
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) DE.AE-03 DE.AE-06
OWASP Top 10 2021 A09:2021
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 10.3.3 10.4 10.4.1 10.4.1.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) 10.3.3 10.4.1 10.4.1.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) 10.3.3 10.4.1 10.4.1.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) 10.3.3 10.4.1 10.4.1.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) 10.3.3 10.4.1 10.4.1.1
SWIFT CSF 2023 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
TISAX ISA 6 5.2.4
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) MON-02
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational MON-02
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure MON-02
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats MON-02
US (31)
Framework Mapping Values
US C2M2 2.1 SITUATION-1.E.MIL2
US CERT RMM 1.2 COMP:SG2.SP1 COMP:SG3.SP1 MON:SG1.SP3 MON:SG2.SP3 MON:SG2.SP4
US CISA CPG 2022 2.G 2.T
US CJIS Security Policy 5.9.3 (source) 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.3 SI-4
US CMMC 2.0 Level 2 (source) AU.L2-3.3.1 AU.L2-3.3.3 AU.L2-3.3.5 AU.L2-3.3.6 AU.L2-3.3.8 AU.L2-3.3.9
US CMMC 2.0 Level 3 (source) AU.L2-3.3.1 AU.L2-3.3.3 AU.L2-3.3.5 AU.L2-3.3.6 AU.L2-3.3.8 AU.L2-3.3.9
US CMS MARS-E 2.0 AU-2 AU-2(3) AU-6 SI-4
US DoD Zero Trust Execution Roadmap 3.5.1 3.5.2 7.1
US DHS CISA TIC 3.0 3.UNI.CLMAN
US DHS ZTCF APP-02 SEC-01 SEC-05
US FDA 21 CFR Part 11 11.10 11.10(b) 11.10(c) 11.10(e)
US FedRAMP R4 AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
US FedRAMP R4 (low) AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
US FedRAMP R4 (high) AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
US FedRAMP R4 (LI-SaaS) AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
US FedRAMP R5 (source) AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
US FedRAMP R5 (low) (source) AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
US FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) (source) AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
US IRS 1075 AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
US NISPOM 2020 8-602
US SSA EIESR 8.0 5.4
US - CA CCPA 2025 7123(c)(7)
US - MA 201 CMR 17.00 17.03(2)(b)(3) 17.04(4)
US - NY DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 500.14(b)(2) 500.6(a)(2)
US - OR 646A 622(2)(d)(B)(iii)
US - TX DIR Control Standards 2.0 AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
US - TX TX-RAMP Level 1 AU-2 AU-6 SI-4
US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 AU-2 AU-2(3) AU-6 SI-4
EMEA (9)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 3.5(52)
EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 3.2.6
EMEA Germany C5 2020 OPS-14
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 4.6 12.17 21.3 21.4 21.6 21.12
EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 2-11-1-3 2-11-1-4
EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 2-11-1-3 2-11-1-9
EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 TPC-81
EMEA Saudi Arabia SAMA CSF 1.0 3.3.14
EMEA UK CAP 1850 C1 C2
APAC (3)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2024 ISM-0109 ISM-1228 ISM-1405 ISM-1536 ISM-1537 ISM-1566 ISM-1650
APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 16.6.11.C.01 16.6.11.C.02 16.6.11.C.03 16.6.12.C.01 16.6.12.C.02 16.6.12.C.03
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 9.1.3
Americas (4)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Bermuda BMACCC 6.21
Americas Canada CSAG 3.2
Americas Canada OSFI B-13 3.3.1
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.03.05.A 03.03.05.C

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to utilize a Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM) or similar automated tool, to support the centralized collection of security-related event logs.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to utilize a Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM) or similar automated tool, to support the centralized collection of security-related event logs.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Continuous Monitoring (MON) efforts are requirements-driven and governed at a local/regional level, but are not consistent across the organization. CMM Level 2 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Identify cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for situational awareness management. o Configure alerts for critical or sensitive data that is stored, transmitted and processed on assets. o Use a structured process to review and analyze logs.

  • Situational awareness management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
  • Secure baseline configurations generate logs that contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
  • IT/cybersecurity personnel:
  • A log aggregator, or similar automated tool, provides an event log report generation capability to aid in detecting and assessing anomalous activities on business-critical systems.
Level 3 — Well Defined

Continuous Monitoring (MON) efforts are standardized across the organization and centrally managed, where technically feasible, to ensure consistency. CMM Level 3 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Governs asset management that ensures compliance with requirements for asset management. o Leverages a Configuration Management Database (CMDB), or similar tool, as the authoritative source of IT assets. o Centrally collects logs and is protected according to the manufacturer’s security guidelines to protect the integrity of the event logs with cryptographic mechanisms. o Monitors the organization for Indicators of Compromise (IoC) and provides 24x7x365 near real-time alerting capability. o Is configured to alert incident response personnel of detected suspicious events such that incident responders can look to terminate suspicious events.

  • An IT Asset Management (ITAM) function, or similar function:
  • A Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM), or similar automated tool:
  • Both inbound and outbound network traffic is monitored for unauthorized activities to identify prohibited activities and assist incident handlers with identifying potentially compromised systems.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Continuous Monitoring (MON) efforts are metrics driven and provide sufficient management insight (based on a quantitative understanding of process capabilities) to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and identify areas for improvement. In addition to CMM Level 3 criteria, CMM Level 4 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • 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.
  • Both business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving

See C|P-CMM4. There are no defined C|P-CMM5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to utilize a Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM) or similar automated tool, to support the centralized collection of security-related event logs.

Assessment Objectives

  1. MON-02_A01 the frequency at which system audit records are reviewed and analyzed is defined.
  2. MON-02_A02 system audit records are reviewed and analyzed per an organization-defined frequency for indications and the potential impact of inappropriate or unusual activity.
  3. MON-02_A03 audit records across different repositories are analyzed to gain organization-wide situational awareness.
  4. MON-02_A04 automated mechanisms used for integrating audit record review, analysis and reporting processes are defined.
  5. MON-02_A05 audit record review, analysis and reporting processes are integrated using organization-defined automated mechanisms.
  6. MON-02_A06 the frequency or situation requiring logging for each specified event type is defined.
  7. MON-02_A07 the event logging function is coordinated with other organizational entities requiring audit-related information to guide and inform the selection criteria for events to be logged.
  8. MON-02_A08 the event types selected for logging are reviewed / updated organization-defined frequency.
  9. MON-02_A09 a rationale is provided for why the event types selected for logging are deemed to be adequate to support after-the-fact investigations of incidents.
  10. MON-02_A10 system audit records are reviewed and analyzed per an organization-defined frequency for indications of organization-defined inappropriate or unusual activity and the potential impact of the inappropriate or unusual activity.
  11. MON-02_A11 findings are reported to organization-defined personnel or roles.
  12. MON-02_A12 the level of audit record review, analysis and reporting within the system is adjusted when there is a change in risk based on law enforcement information, intelligence information or other credible sources of information.
  13. MON-02_A13 system audit records are reviewed and analyzed <A.03.03.05.ODP[01]: frequency> for indications and the potential impact of inappropriate or unusual activity.

Evidence Requirements

E-MON-01 Event Log Review & Analysis

Documented evidence of security event log review and analysis (e.g., system monitoring records).

Event Log Monitoring
E-MON-05 Centralized Event Log Collection

Documented evidence of security-relevant activities being logged and included as part of the centralized event log collection and review/analysis process.

Event Log Monitoring

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Centralized log collector
  • Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)

Small

  • Centralized log collector
  • Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)

Medium

  • Centralized log collector
  • Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
  • Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)

Large

  • Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
  • Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)

Enterprise

  • Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
  • Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)

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.