Skip to main content

MON-06.1: Query Parameter Audits of Personal Data (PD)

MON 3 — Low Detect

Mechanisms exist to provide and implement the capability for auditing the parameters of user query events for data sets containing Personal Data (PD).

Control Question: Does the organization provide and implement the capability for auditing the parameters of user query events for data sets containing Personal Data (PD)?

General (3)
Framework Mapping Values
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) AU-12(4)
NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) AU-12(4)
OWASP Top 10 2021 A09:2021

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to provide and implement the capability for auditing the parameters of user query events for data sets containing Personal Data (PD).

Level 1 — Performed Informally

C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to provide and implement the capability for auditing the parameters of user query events for data sets containing Personal Data (PD).

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 provide and implement the capability for auditing the parameters of user query events for data sets containing Personal Data (PD).

Assessment Objectives

  1. MON-06.1_A01 the capability to audit the parameters of user query events for data sets containing Personal Data (PD) is provided.
  2. MON-06.1_A02 the capability to audit the parameters of user query events for data sets containing Personal Data (PD) is implemented.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Small

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Medium

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Large

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Enterprise

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

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.