MON-02.6: Audit Level Adjustments
Mechanisms exist to adjust the level of audit review, analysis and reporting based on evolving threat information from law enforcement, industry associations or other credible sources of threat intelligence.
Control Question: Does the organization adjust the level of audit review, analysis and reporting based on evolving threat information from law enforcement, industry associations or other credible sources of threat intelligence?
General (19)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| GovRAMP Low | AU-06 |
| GovRAMP Low+ | AU-06 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | AU-06 |
| GovRAMP High | AU-06 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | AU-6(10) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | AU-6 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | AU-6 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | AU-6 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | AU-6 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | AU-6 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | AU-6 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | AU-6 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | AU-6 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline | AU-6 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | AU-6 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 | AU-6 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational | MON-02.6 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure | MON-02.6 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats | MON-02.6 |
US (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US FedRAMP R4 | AU-6(10) |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | AU-6(10) |
| US IRS 1075 | AU-6 |
| US - TX DIR Control Standards 2.0 | AU-6 |
EMEA (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2020 | OIS-05 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to adjust the level of audit review, analysis and reporting based on evolving threat information from law enforcement, industry associations or other credible sources of threat intelligence.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to adjust the level of audit review, analysis and reporting based on evolving threat information from law enforcement, industry associations or other credible sources of threat intelligence.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
C|P-CMM2 is N/A, since a well-defined process is required to adjust the level of audit review, analysis and reporting based on evolving threat information from law enforcement, industry associations or other credible sources of threat intelligence.
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.
- A Security Operations Center (SOC), or similar capability, configures monitoring technologies to implement the enhanced monitoring profiles for selected users and establish a reporting capability to designated personnel.
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 adjust the level of audit review, analysis and reporting based on evolving threat information from law enforcement, industry associations or other credible sources of threat intelligence.
Assessment Objectives
- MON-02.6_A01 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.
- MON-02.6_A02 findings are reported to organization-defined personnel or roles.
- MON-02.6_A03 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.
- MON-02.6_A04 the frequency at which system audit records are reviewed and analyzed is defined.
- MON-02.6_A05 inappropriate or unusual activity is defined.
- MON-02.6_A06 personnel or roles to receive findings from reviews and analyses of system records is/are defined.