Skip to main content

MON-04: Event Log Storage Capacity

MON 8 — High Detect

Mechanisms exist to allocate and proactively manage sufficient event log storage capacity to reduce the likelihood of such capacity being exceeded.

Control Question: Does the organization allocate and proactively manage sufficient event log storage capacity to reduce the likelihood of such capacity being exceeded?

General (20)
US (17)
EMEA (2)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 21.8
EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 2-12-3-5
APAC (1)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 16.6.13.C.01 16.6.13.C.02 16.6.13.C.03 16.6.13.C.04

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to allocate and proactively manage sufficient event log storage capacity to reduce the likelihood of such capacity being exceeded.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to allocate and proactively manage sufficient event log storage capacity to reduce the likelihood of such capacity being exceeded.

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 allocate and proactively manage sufficient event log storage capacity to reduce the likelihood of such capacity being exceeded.

Assessment Objectives

  1. MON-04_A01 event log retention requirements are defined.
  2. MON-04_A02 event log storage capacity is allocated to accommodate organization-defined event log retention requirements.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
  • ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com)

Small

  • IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
  • ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com)

Medium

  • IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
  • ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com)

Large

  • IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
  • ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com)

Enterprise

  • IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
  • ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com)

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.