Skip to main content

MON-14.2: Privileged User Oversight

MON 5 — Medium Detect

Mechanisms exist to implement enhanced activity monitoring for privileged users.

Renumbered: Formerly MON-01.15 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization implement enhanced activity monitoring for privileged users?

General (13)
Framework Mapping Values
CIS CSC 8.1 3.14
CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 3.14
CSA CCM 4.1.0 IAM-09 IAM-10 IAM-11
GovRAMP SI-04(20)
GovRAMP High SI-04(20)
NIST 800-53 R4 SI-4(20)
NIST 800-53 R5.2 SI-04(20)
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) SI-04(20)
NIST SP 800-66 R2 164.312(c)
NIST 800-82 R3 SI-04(20)
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay SI-04(20)
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.01.07.b
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.01.07.b
US (5)
EMEA (5)
APAC (2)
Americas (2)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Argentina Reg 132 2018 B.2.1-3
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 03.01.07.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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 implement enhanced activity monitoring for privileged users.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Continuous Monitoring (MON) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ 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. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.

Level 5 — Continuously Improving

Continuous Monitoring (MON) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.

Assessment Objectives

  1. MON-14.2_A01 additional monitoring of privileged users is defined.
  2. MON-14.2_A02 additional monitoring of privileged users is implemented.

Evidence Requirements

E-MON-03 Privileged User Oversight

Documented evidence of privileged user activity being logged and included as part of the centralized event log collection and review/analysis process.

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.