Skip to main content

MON-05: Response To Event Log Processing Failures

MON 8 — High Detect

Mechanisms exist to alert appropriate personnel in the event of a log processing failure and take actions to remedy the disruption.

Control Question: Does the organization alert appropriate personnel in the event of a log processing failure and take actions to remedy the disruption?

General (25)
Framework Mapping Values
CSA CCM 4 LOG-13
GovRAMP Low AU-05
GovRAMP Low+ AU-05
GovRAMP Moderate AU-05
GovRAMP High AU-05
IEC 62443-4-2 2019 CR 2.10 (6.12.1)
NIST 800-53 R4 AU-5
NIST 800-53 R4 (low) AU-5
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) AU-5
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) AU-5
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) AU-5
NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) AU-5
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) AU-5
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) AU-5
NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay AU-5
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay AU-5
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay AU-5
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) 3.3.4
NIST 800-171A (source) 3.3.4[a] 3.3.4[b] 3.3.4[c]
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.03.04.b
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.03.04.ODP[01] A.03.03.04.ODP[02] A.03.03.04.a A.03.03.04.b
OWASP Top 10 2021 A09:2021
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) MON-05
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure MON-05
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats MON-05
US (22)
EMEA (3)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2020 OPS-17
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 21.9
EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 2-11-1-2
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.03.04.B

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to alert appropriate personnel in the event of a log processing failure and take actions to remedy the disruption.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Continuous Monitoring (MON) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Generating event logs and the review of event logs is narrowly-focused to business-critical systems and/ or systems that store, processes and/ or transmit sensitive/regulated data.
  • Secure baseline configurations generate logs that contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
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 alert appropriate personnel in the event of a log processing failure and take actions to remedy the disruption.

Assessment Objectives

  1. MON-05_A01 personnel or roles to be alerted in the event of an event logging process failure are identified.
  2. MON-05_A02 types of event logging process failures for which alert will be generated are defined.
  3. MON-05_A03 organization-defined additional actions are taken.
  4. MON-05_A04 organizational personnel or roles are alerted in the event of an audit logging process failure within an organization-defined time period.
  5. MON-05_A05 the time period for organizational personnel or roles receiving audit logging process failure alerts is defined.
  6. MON-05_A06 additional actions to be taken in the event of an audit logging process failure are defined.
  7. MON-05_A07 organizational personnel or roles are alerted in the event of an audit logging process failure within <A.03.03.04.ODP[01]: time period>.
  8. MON-05_A08 the following additional actions are taken: <A.03.03.04.ODP[02]: additional actions>.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Incident Response Plan (IRP)
  • Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)

Small

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

Medium

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

Large

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

Enterprise

  • Incident Response Plan (IRP)
  • 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.