MON-05.4: Automated Tools for Real-Time Event Log & Security-Relevant Telemetry Analysis
Mechanisms exist to utilize a Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM), or similar automated tool, to support near real-time event log and security-relevant telemetry analysis and incident escalation.
Renumbered: Formerly MON-01.2 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization utilize a Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM), or similar automated tool, to support near real-time analysis and incident escalation?
General (26)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC7.2 CC7.2-POF1 CC7.2-POF3 |
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | LOG-03 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | MON-03 OPA-04 |
| GovRAMP | SI-04(02) |
| GovRAMP Moderate | SI-04(02) |
| GovRAMP High | SI-04(02) |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 8.16 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 8.16 |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 | TS-1.5 |
| NIST AI 600-1 | MG-3.2-006 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SI-4(2) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | SC-48 SI-04(02) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | SI-04(02) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | SI-04(02) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | SC-48 SI-04(02) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | SI-04(02) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | SI-04(02) |
| NIST 800-160 Vol2 R1 | SC-48 SI-04(02) |
| NIST 800-207 | NIST Tenet 5 NIST Tenet 7 |
| OWASP Top 10 2025 | A01:2025 A09:2025 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 10.4 10.4.1 10.4.1.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) | 10.4.1 10.4.1.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) | 10.4.1 10.4.1.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) | 10.4.1 10.4.1.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 10.4.1 10.4.1.1 |
| SCF DPMP 2026 | 7.13 |
US (11)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SI-4(2) |
| USA Federal DHS CISA TIC 3.0 | 3.UNI.CLMAN |
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | RESPONSE-1d |
| USA Federal DoD Zero Trust Reference Architecture 2.0 | 6.2 |
| USA Federal DoD Zero Trust Execution Roadmap v1.1 | 2.7.2 2.7.3 5.2.2 7.2 7.2.1 |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | SI-4(2) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | SI-04(02) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | SI-04(02) |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | SI-4(CE-2) |
| USA California CCPA 2025 | 7123(c)(8)(A) |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.14(b)(2) |
EMEA (9)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.4.5.38 3.4.5.39 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 3.2.2 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2024 | 3102 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L3 2024 | 3102 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 2-11-1 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 2-11-1-3 2-11-1-4 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 | 2-12-3-3 2-12-3-4 5-1-3-3 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 | 2-11-1-3 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SAMA CSF 1.0 2017 | 3.3.14.4.j 3.3.14.4.k |
APAC (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia Essential 8 2024 | ISM-1906 ISM-1907 |
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-1906 ISM-1907 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF Microsmall 2023 | HMS19 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 16.6.15.C.01 16.6.15.C.02 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 6.4.7 7.7.4 12.2.2 |
Americas (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 3.3.1 |
| Americas Canada OSFI Self-Assessment Guidance | 3.3.1 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Continuous Monitoring (MON) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with MON domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with MON domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Continuous monitoring-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Continuous monitoring may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or 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 TAASD. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel configure alerts for critical or sensitive data that is stored, transmitted and processed on assets.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Continuous Monitoring (MON) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Cybersecurity personnel use a structured process via Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) to review and analyze logs. ▪ A Security Operations Center (SOC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain MON domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of continuous monitoring operations (e.g., Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with MON domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce security event logging to contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to utilize a Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM), or similar automated tool, to support near real-time analysis and incident escalation.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Assessment Objectives
- MON-05.4_A01 a Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM), or similar automated tool, is employed to support near real-time analysis of event logs and security-relevant telemetry.
- MON-05.4_A02 the Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM), or similar automated tool, supports incident escalation based on the results of near real-time analysis.
Evidence Requirements
- E-MON-06 Automated Event Escalation & Reporting
-
Documented evidence of a capability for selected events to alert applicable personnel, or roles, based on the type of event. This can be demonstrated by the configuration of a Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM), or similar technology, that helps automate event log analysis and reporting.
Event Log Monitoring
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
- Cloud SIEM with automated alerting (e.g., Microsoft Sentinel, Elastic SIEM)
Small
- Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
- Cloud SIEM (e.g., Microsoft Sentinel, Sumo Logic)
- Automated alert rules for common attack patterns
Medium
- Security Incident Event Management (SIEM) (e.g., Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM QRadar)
- Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR) (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
- Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
Large
- SIEM with automated analytics (e.g., Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel)
- Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR) (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
- Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
- User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA)
Enterprise
- Enterprise SIEM with AI/ML-driven analytics (e.g., Splunk ES, IBM QRadar with AI)
- SOAR platform for automated response (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
- XDR / MDR platform
- UEBA integrated with SIEM
- Threat hunting capability