Skip to main content

MON-05.5: Automated Incident Responder Alerting

MON 5 — Medium Detect

Mechanisms exist to automatically alert incident response personnel to inappropriate or anomalous activities that have potential security incident implications.

Renumbered: Formerly MON-01.12 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization automatically alert incident response personnel to inappropriate or anomalous activities that have potential security incident implications?

General (13)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC7.2-POF2
CSA IoT SCF 2 MON-03
NIST 800-53 R4 SI-4(12)
NIST 800-53 R5.2 SI-04(12)
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) SI-04(12)
NIST 800-82 R3 SI-04(12)
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay SI-04(12)
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.03.04.a 03.03.05.b
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.03.05.b
NIST 800-172 R3 03.14.17E 03.14.18E
NIST 800-172A R3 DS-A.03.14.17E DS-A.03.14.18E A.03.14.18E.ODP[02]
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) DE.AE DE.AE-06
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) A3.2.6.1
US (3)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal CISA CPG 2022 2.T
USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) SI-04(12)
USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 SI-4(CE-12)
EMEA (1)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 Article 23.2(b)
APAC (3)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC India RBI PPI 2025 15.3.l 17.4.a 17.4.b
APAC New Zealand HISF MLHSP 2023 HHSP69 HML68
APAC New Zealand HISF Suppliers 2023 HSUP60
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 03.03.04.A 03.03.05.B

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.

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 automatically alert incident response personnel to inappropriate or anomalous activities that have potential security incident implications.

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

  1. MON-05.5_A01 personnel or roles to be alerted when indications of inappropriate or unusual activity with cybersecurity / data privacy implications occur is/are defined.
  2. MON-05.5_A02 automated mechanisms used to alert personnel or roles are defined.
  3. MON-05.5_A03 activities that trigger alerts to personnel or are defined.
  4. MON-05.5_A04 personnel or roles is/are alerted using automated mechanisms when activities that trigger alerts indicate inappropriate or unusual activities with cybersecurity / data privacy implications.
  5. MON-05.5_A05 findings are reported to organizational personnel or roles.

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)

Small

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

Medium

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

Large

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

Enterprise

  • 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.