MON-05: Response To Event Log Processing Failures
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)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CERT RMM 1.2 | COMP:SG1.SP3 TM:SG5.SP2 |
| US CISA CPG 2022 | 2.T |
| US CJIS Security Policy 5.9.3 (source) | 5.4.2 |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 2 (source) | AU.L2-3.3.4 |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 3 (source) | AU.L2-3.3.4 |
| US CMS MARS-E 2.0 | AU-5 |
| US FedRAMP R4 | AU-5 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (low) | AU-5 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | AU-5 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | AU-5 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (LI-SaaS) | AU-5 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | AU-5 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (low) (source) | AU-5 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) | AU-5 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | AU-5 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) (source) | AU-5 |
| US IRS 1075 | AU-5 |
| US NERC CIP 2024 (source) | CIP-007-6 4.2.2 |
| US NISPOM 2020 | 8-602 |
| US - TX DIR Control Standards 2.0 | AU-5 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 1 | AU-5 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | AU-5 |
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
- MON-05_A01 personnel or roles to be alerted in the event of an event logging process failure are identified.
- MON-05_A02 types of event logging process failures for which alert will be generated are defined.
- MON-05_A03 organization-defined additional actions are taken.
- MON-05_A04 organizational personnel or roles are alerted in the event of an audit logging process failure within an organization-defined time period.
- MON-05_A05 the time period for organizational personnel or roles receiving audit logging process failure alerts is defined.
- MON-05_A06 additional actions to be taken in the event of an audit logging process failure are defined.
- 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>.
- 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)