Crosswalk pair

NIST SP 800-171 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework, control by control

22 canonical controls in Keel’s library satisfy clauses of both NIST SP 800-171 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework. Implement each once, attach the evidence once, and it counts toward each standard. The overlap is the work you don’t repeat.

Start free with NIST SP 800-171 + NIST Cybersecurity Framework See all pairs

The overlap

What the two libraries have in common

Every figure here counts canonical controls in Keel’s library, not clauses of either standard. Each standard’s own authored count is on its framework page.

Controls that satisfy both

Canonical controls that crosswalk to at least one clause of each.

In Keel’s library for NIST SP 800-171

54% of them also map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework.

In Keel’s library for NIST Cybersecurity Framework

44% of them also map to NIST SP 800-171.

Evidence artifacts expected

Across the shared controls, from Keel’s evidence guidance. Gathered once.

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 54%

22 controls of 41 in Keel’s library for NIST SP 800-171 also map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework.
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 44%

22 controls of 50 in Keel’s library for NIST Cybersecurity Framework also map to NIST SP 800-171.

The mapping

Controls that satisfy both

Each row is one control in Keel’s library and the clauses it answers on each side. Do the work once; both columns are then evidenced by the same artifacts.

NIST SP 800-171 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework controls that satisfy both, with the clauses each maps to
Canonical control	NIST SP 800-171 clauses	NIST Cybersecurity Framework clauses
Governance & Risk
Contact with authorities & security communities The organization decides in advance which outside bodies it may need to reach about information security, and can reach them without improvising. Two distinct registers are kept. The first names the AUTHORITIES relevant to what the organization does and where it operates - the data protection or supervisory authority, the sector regulator, law enforcement, the national cyber incident body, and the emergency and utility services that matter to its sites - together with what each would be contacted about, the threshold at which contact becomes mandatory rather than optional, who inside the organization is authorized to make it, and the current route in. The second records the SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS the organization participates in - security forums, professional associations, sector information-sharing bodies, vendor and product advisory lists - which exist so that advisories, techniques and early warning arrive before an incident rather than during one, and so that specialist advice can be obtained on demand. Both registers name an owner, are verified on a stated cadence and after any reorganization, and are reachable by the incident responders at the moment they are needed rather than filed where only their author knows. What may be shared outward through either channel is bounded by the organization’s own classification and confidentiality rules, so participation does not become a disclosure route. What arrives through those channels is acted on rather than received: security alerts, advisories and directives from the external sources the organization has named are taken in on an ongoing basis, generated internally where the organization is the one who found the problem, disseminated to the roles, groups and external parties the organization has decided need them, and - where the item is a DIRECTIVE the organization is bound by - implemented within the timeframe it sets, or the reason it cannot be is notified to the body that issued it rather than left unanswered. The register is not confined to authorities and forums: it also holds the parties who have to be told when an incident happens - the internal staff who must be informed, the service vendors whose platforms are involved, the cyber insurance provider whose policy carries a notification condition, and the information sharing and analysis partners the organization belongs to - and every entry is verified on a defined cadence, so the number in it is current at the moment somebody has to dial it. What arrives is fed into the ANALYSIS and not only into the inbox: the threat intelligence and the contextual information the organization receives - what is being exploited now, against whom, and by what technique - is integrated into how adverse events are analyzed and into the risk assessment, so an alert is interpreted against current knowledge rather than in isolation. The same register is what incident information is shared against: what goes to each designated internal and external party, and at what point in the response, is decided in advance so sharing follows a list rather than whoever is remembered under pressure.	3.14.3	ID.RA-02, DE.AE-07, RS.CO-03
Internal audit program A risk-based internal audit program evaluates conformity and effectiveness at planned intervals, and again when an environmental or operational change could have undermined what was last evaluated; each evaluation covers both technical testing and non-technical review of whether the documented policies and procedures are actually being met. The program itself is written down - how often audits run, what methods they use, who is responsible for them, what each one covers and how it reports - and nobody audits their own work, so a finding is an independent judgment rather than a self-assessment. The results of each audit go to the management responsible for the area audited, and the program and its results are retained as evidence that it ran. It rests on a documented assessment, authorization and monitoring policy with supporting procedures, issued to the roles it binds, owned by a named official, and reviewed and updated on a defined cadence. Independence is a property of the assessor and not only of the reporting line: assessments are carried out by assessors or assessment teams with no responsibility for what they are assessing and no stake in the result - internal to the organization but outside the area, or brought in from outside it - and the organization states what level of independence it requires before the assessment is commissioned rather than judging it afterwards. That independence extends to the ongoing case as well as the scheduled one: where controls are monitored continuously between audits, independent assessors monitor them too, so the periodic audit is not the only unbiased look the organization ever takes. What an evaluation produces is treated as an input to improvement and not only as a conformity verdict: the findings, the observations and the opportunities each audit identifies are recorded as improvements with owners and dates and carried into the organization’s improvement process, so an audit changes something rather than closing.	3.12.1	ID.IM-01
Risk assessment & treatment A documented process to identify, analyze, evaluate, and treat information security risks on a defined cadence, and again whenever a significant change is proposed or has happened - a new system, a new supplier, a reorganization, a serious incident - so the picture is refreshed by events and not only by the calendar. The process is repeatable: the criteria for accepting risk and for deciding when an assessment is performed are set in advance and applied the same way each time, so repeated assessments produce consistent, comparable and valid results rather than a different answer depending on who ran it. Every risk has a named owner who approves how it will be treated and accepts what is left afterwards. The assessment covers risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, the integrity and the availability of the data the organization holds - all three, not confidentiality alone - and is accurate and thorough enough to be relied on by the decisions taken from it. Treatment brings each risk down to a level that is reasonable and appropriate for this organization, which is the target the process is judged against rather than merely recording that a risk exists. Each assessment and its results are retained as documented information. The process is set down as a documented risk assessment policy with supporting procedures, issued to the roles it binds, owned by a named role, and reviewed and updated on a defined cadence and after an event that changes how the organization assesses risk. The criteria are stated as risk appetite and risk tolerance: how much risk the organization is willing to seek in pursuit of its objectives, and how much variation around that it will tolerate - written down, communicated to the people who take risk decisions, and maintained as the organization and its environment change rather than set once and inherited. The method itself is standardized and communicated: how a risk is calculated, how it is documented, which category it falls into and how it is prioritized against the others, so two people assessing the same thing produce the same rating. What the assessment works from is recorded rather than assumed. The threats to the organization, internal as well as external, are identified and written down. The impacts each could have, and how likely each is, are identified and recorded against them. And the threats, the vulnerabilities, the likelihoods and the impacts are then used together to understand the risk as it stands before any treatment is applied, and to decide which responses are taken first.	3.11.1	GV.RM-02, GV.RM-06, ID.RA-03, ID.RA-04, ID.RA-05
Security performance measurement What the organization will monitor and measure in order to know whether information security is working is decided in advance and written down: which processes and which controls, by what method, who performs the measurement, when it is performed, and who analyzes and evaluates the results and when. The methods are chosen so that repeating them produces comparable and reproducible results, rather than a different answer depending on who ran it and in which week. The results are retained, and the evaluation - what the numbers say about whether the management system is performing and whether its controls are effective, not merely what they count - reaches the people who decide what to do about it, in time for them to do it. Measurement is set up as a CONTINUOUS strategy rather than a periodic exercise, and the strategy states its parts: the metrics to be monitored; how often each control is assessed and how often the results are monitored, with the frequencies chosen deliberately and written down; ongoing assessment of whether each control is still implemented correctly, operating as intended and producing the intended result; correlation and analysis of what monitoring produces, so separate readings are interpreted together; a response to what the analysis finds; and reporting of the organization’s security and privacy status to the roles that need it, at a stated frequency. Risk is monitored as part of the same strategy rather than beside it, on three axes: whether the treatments in place are still effective, whether the organization is still complying with the requirements it is subject to, and whether anything has changed - in the systems, the environment, the threats or the organization itself - that makes the current picture out of date. The evaluation covers how the organization is performing at MANAGING cybersecurity risk, not only how the individual controls are performing, and it is reviewed specifically for what should be adjusted as a result - so the measurement program produces a decision rather than a report.	3.12.3	GV.OV-03
Access Control
Access control policy Rules for granting, reviewing, and revoking access to systems and data based on business need and least privilege; anyone who works with sensitive data, or in a place from which it can be reached, is individually authorized for that work or supervised while doing it; and a documented emergency route exists to obtain the data when the normal access path is unavailable, with every use of that route recorded and reviewed afterwards. The rules also settle the opposite question: which actions, if any, a person may take on a system without identifying or authenticating themselves at all. Those actions are identified rather than left as whatever the system happens to permit, they are limited to what the organization’s business actually requires, and each one is documented in the system’s security plan together with the reasoning that justifies it, so an unauthenticated path is a decision somebody made and can be asked about. The rules are enforced by access control lists set on the data itself, not only by what an application chooses to show: permissions on local and remote file systems, on databases and inside applications are configured to the holder’s need to know, so information a role has no business reading is unreachable rather than merely unadvertised. What an authorized user may DO is limited on the same terms as what they may read: the types of transaction and function each role is permitted to execute are decided in advance and enforced by the system, so holding access to an application does not carry the right to run every operation inside it, and an action outside the permitted set is refused rather than merely unadvertised in the interface. Enforcement is centralized wherever the systems support it - access decisions for enterprise assets are made by a single directory service or single sign-on provider rather than by each system keeping its own list - and the systems that make those decisions are themselves known: an inventory of the organization’s authentication and authorization systems is maintained, including those run by a service provider on its behalf, and reviewed on a defined cadence.	3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.5	PR.AA-05
Multi-factor authentication Documented procedures verify that a person or system seeking access to sensitive data is the one it claims to be, on every path by which that data can be reached - and multi-factor authentication is the enforced mechanism for remote access, administrative access, and access to sensitive systems and data. The multi-factor mechanism itself is configured so it cannot be bypassed, so the factors it uses are genuinely independent of one another - one factor’s success granting no knowledge of and no route around another - and so access is refused unless every factor required has succeeded. The requirement is not confined to the accounts that carry privilege: every account is covered, privileged and non-privileged alike, because an ordinary account is the usual way into a privileged one. The mechanisms chosen are resistant to replay, so an authentication captured on the wire or lifted from a log cannot be presented again to gain access. Authentication is not a single event at the start of a session either: the person is required to authenticate again when the organization’s defined circumstances arise - a change of role or of the authenticators themselves, an escalation to privilege, a session that has run beyond its defined life, or a request to perform an action the organization has designated as requiring fresh proof.	3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.4	PR.AA-03
User provisioning & deprovisioning Joiner/mover/leaver process to grant, change, and promptly remove access across systems, in which every person is issued an account of their own carrying a unique name or number, so an action in a log traces back to one named individual rather than to a shared or generic login. Each person’s right of access is recorded when it is established and reviewed on a schedule thereafter, as well as granted and changed - so what someone holds is a documented position that has been looked at again, not the accumulated residue of past requests - and what may be granted follows the organization’s access authorization rules rather than the judgment of whoever processes the request. Identity is managed as a lifecycle in its own right and not only as the access hung off it: an identity is created only after the person or the thing behind it has been verified to a stated standard, is linked to a single accountable human owner, and is disabled and then retired on a defined path rather than deleted where the record has to survive for an audit trail. A shared or generic identity exists only where there is a reason it cannot be individual, and then it is authorized, given an owner who answers for what is done with it, and reviewed. Identities issued to services, applications, devices and automation are registered on the same terms as human ones, with an owner, a purpose and a review date, because an unowned machine identity outlives every person who knew what it was for. Dormant identities are detected and removed rather than waiting for a leaver process that was never triggered. The lifecycle is run by automated mechanisms wherever the systems allow it: accounts are provisioned and deprovisioned from an authoritative source of record, and each act of creating, modifying, enabling, disabling or removing an account generates an audit record automatically rather than depending on the administrator to note it. An account issued for a temporary or emergency purpose carries an expiry from the moment it is created and is disabled or removed automatically when that expiry passes, so a route opened for one situation does not stay open after it. An account is disabled within a defined period when it has expired, when it is no longer associated with any individual, when it is in violation of the organization’s policy, or when it has been inactive beyond a defined period - and where an individual is found to pose a significant risk, within a defined period of that discovery rather than at the next scheduled review. Identifiers are managed as an object in their own right: an identifier is authorized before it is assigned, is selected to a defined convention, is never reused for a different person or entity, and is issued on the same terms whether it names an individual, a group, a role, a service or a device - and where the organization needs to distinguish one class of person from another, such as an employee from a contractor or a vendor, the identifier or its record carries that status rather than leaving it to be inferred. Identity proofing is performed to the assurance level the access warrants: the applicant is resolved to a single unique individual, is required to present identity evidence to whoever registers them, and that evidence is validated and verified by methods the organization has defined rather than accepted on sight, with an address of record confirmed through an out-of-band channel where the assurance level calls for it. All of it is answerable from one INVENTORY OF ACCOUNTS rather than from each system in turn: every account the organization manages is listed - ordinary user, administrator and service alike - with the person or function behind it, the account name, the dates it starts and stops, the department or owner it belongs to and the privilege it carries, and the list is validated against what is actually active on a defined recurring schedule, so an account nobody can account for is found by the review rather than by an incident. Accounts are managed centrally through a directory or identity service wherever a system can be brought into one, because an account that lives only inside an application is the one a leaver process misses.	3.1.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.5, 3.5.6, 3.9.2	PR.AA-01, PR.AA-02
Data Protection & Privacy
Data classification & handling Information is classified and handled per its sensitivity, with rules for labeling and protection - including the everyday handling rules that stop it being seen, overheard or picked up by people with no business reading it, so exposure that happens incidentally alongside legitimate work is limited rather than accepted. The handling rules are written to cover disclosure that nobody intended as much as disclosure that somebody chose, they say what an unauthorized disclosure is against the organization’s own privacy and confidentiality rules rather than leaving that to judgment in the moment, and they reach every medium the information travels in - spoken, on paper, on a screen and in a system - because the incidental exposure they exist to limit does not respect the boundary between an administrative, a physical and a technical safeguard. Labeling is the procedure that makes the classification visible, and it is defined rather than left to habit: there is a label for each level of the scheme, a rule for how the label is applied in each form the information takes - a document, an email, a file, a database field, a screen, a report, a piece of removable media, a printed page - and, where a system supports it, the label is carried in metadata so it can be acted on automatically rather than only read. The person who creates or receives the information applies the label at that point rather than later, the label travels with the information when it is copied, extracted, exported or transferred so a copy does not arrive unclassified, and information derived from or aggregated out of classified sources is labeled for what the combination is worth rather than for what the least sensitive input was. Where a label would itself disclose something, an agreed alternative is used and recorded, and the procedure covers what to do when unlabeled information is found. On storage media the marking carries more than the level: it states the distribution limitations that apply and any handling caveats that travel with the contents, so somebody who picks the item up knows what they may do with it without having to ask. Where the organization exempts a class of media from marking because it never leaves a controlled area, that exemption is defined and recorded as a decision rather than practiced as an omission. Underneath the scheme sits a documented DATA MANAGEMENT PROCESS that the classification and the handling rules are derived from: it states how sensitivity is decided, who owns each category of data, how each category is handled, the retention limits that apply to it and what disposal it requires, and it is reviewed and updated on a defined cadence and whenever a change to the organization would alter it. That process is also what the DATA FLOWS are documented against - where each category of information originates, which systems and processes it moves between, and where it crosses out to a service provider - recorded as documentation somebody maintains rather than reconstructed when a question is asked, and reviewed on the same cadence.	3.8.4	ID.AM-05
Encryption in transit & at rest Strong cryptography protects sensitive data in transit over public networks and at rest in storage. The mechanisms are chosen to do two things and are judged against both: prevent unauthorized disclosure of the information, and prevent or detect unauthorized change to it - in transit, so a message altered between sender and receiver is caught rather than delivered, and at rest, so a stored record cannot be modified undetectably by somebody with access to the storage but not to the key. Which information is protected at rest, and on which system components, is decided and recorded rather than left to whatever the platform encrypts by default. The scope named explicitly reaches the end-user device as well as the server: data held on laptops, desktops and other end-user devices that carry sensitive information is encrypted at the device or volume level, so a device that leaves the building is an object somebody lost rather than a disclosure. And data in transit is encrypted wherever it is sensitive, not only where it crosses a public network - a session between two internal systems is protected on the same terms when what it carries warrants it. Where a law, a regulation or a contract requires the cryptography to be VALIDATED rather than merely strong, the organization uses a cryptographic module that carries the validation that instrument names, and it confirms that validation against the specific module, version and operating mode actually deployed rather than inferring it from the product’s name - because a validated module run outside the configuration it was validated in is not a validated module, and the certificate that proves the point is held as evidence rather than assumed to exist.	3.13.8, 3.13.11, 3.13.16	PR.DS-01, PR.DS-02
Review of publicly posted information Publishing information where anybody can read it is treated as a disclosure decision, and somebody is accountable for it. The individuals authorized to make information publicly accessible are designated by name or role rather than being whoever holds the credentials to the website, the app listing, the code repository, the social account or the document portal. Those individuals are trained for the specific failure this control exists to prevent: that nonpublic information ends up on a public surface - personal data, security detail, internal identifiers, customer names, unreleased plans, credentials or keys embedded in a file, metadata and revision history inside a document, and anything the organization’s classification scheme says does not leave. Proposed content is reviewed before it is posted, against stated criteria rather than a general instruction to be careful, and the review is recorded so it can be shown to have happened. Publication is not the end of it: what is already published is re-reviewed on a defined cadence, because a page that was safe when written can be made unsafe by what was published beside it later, and anything nonpublic that is found is removed - with the removal treated as a potential incident and assessed as one rather than quietly corrected. The scope covers every public surface the organization actually operates, including the ones not owned by the marketing function. Public statements made during and after an incident fall inside this control rather than outside it: an update on incident recovery goes out through the designated individuals, on the channels the organization has approved for it, against messaging agreed in advance with the legal, security and communications roles - so what is said publicly about an incident is reviewed on the same terms as everything else the organization publishes, at the moment that is hardest to do.	3.1.22	RC.CO-04
Infrastructure & Operations
Asset inventory An inventory of hardware, software, and information assets with assigned owners, in which the movement of equipment and removable media into, out of, and within the organization’s premises is recorded against the person responsible for it. The record is maintained by the acts that change it rather than by a periodic sweep: installing a component, removing one, or updating a system updates the inventory as part of that work, and the estate is scanned for hardware, software and firmware that is present but not authorized, with the response to an unauthorized component - disable its network access, isolate it, remove it, notify a defined role - decided in advance. The inventory answers WHERE INFORMATION IS as well as what exists: for the categories of information the organization has defined as sensitive, it records where that information is processed and stored, which system components host it, and which users and roles can reach it, and it is updated when any of those change - with automated tools used to locate that information across components and to confirm the required protections are actually in place there, rather than relying on what a system was designed to hold. Each asset also carries its support status: the date vendor support ends is recorded, and a component that reaches end of support is replaced, or is covered by an alternative source of continued support that the organization has arranged and recorded, rather than left in service because it still runs. The inventory is kept current by discovery as well as by the acts that change it: an active discovery tool interrogates the network on a defined frequency, a passive tool identifies assets from the traffic they generate, the DHCP and address-management logs are read on a defined cadence so an address issued to something nobody registered surfaces, and automated software-inventory tooling documents what is installed across the estate rather than relying on a manual return. Support status decides authorization rather than merely being recorded: only software the vendor still supports is designated authorized in the inventory, and software that is unsupported and carries no documented exception setting out its mitigating controls and the residual risk somebody accepted is designated unauthorized, so the process that removes unauthorized software picks it up. What the register holds about those categories of information is itself a DATA INVENTORY: for each data type the organization has designated, the record carries the metadata that makes it usable - what the data is, who owns it, how it is classified, where it came from, what it is retained for and for how long - so the question of what data exists is answered from the register rather than from the systems one at a time. And the register tracks lifecycle STATE as well as existence: each system, device, piece of software, service and data set carries where it has reached in its life - requested, acquired, deployed, in service, superseded, withdrawn, disposed of - with the acts that move it between those states recorded against it, so an asset is managed from acquisition through operation to disposal rather than entered once and forgotten.	3.4.1	ID.AM-01, ID.AM-02, ID.AM-07, ID.AM-08
Change management Changes to systems and software are requested, reviewed, tested, approved, and tracked. Each request is explicitly approved OR DISAPPROVED by a role authorized to decide it, rather than proceeding because nobody objected, and the decision, the reason behind it and the change itself are written to a durable record - so the log shows what was refused as well as what shipped, and a change that went in without a decision is visible as one. A proposed change is analyzed for what it would do to security and privacy BEFORE it is approved, so the decision is taken with that answer in hand rather than reported afterwards; where the change is significant, the analysis is recorded and the roles who own the affected controls see it. Change control is a body rather than a queue: security and privacy representatives are members of the group that approves changes, so the question is asked in the room instead of by exception. A change is tested, validated and documented before it is finalized and moved into the running system, in an environment that resembles the one it is going to. After it lands, the controls it touched are verified to be implemented correctly, still operating as intended, and still producing the result the organization’s security and privacy requirements call for - verified, not assumed from the fact that the deployment succeeded. Who may make a change at all is restricted: the physical and logical access needed to alter a system is defined, documented, approved and enforced, and it is a narrower set than the people who may use the system. EXCEPTIONS are managed on the same terms as changes: a departure from a standard, a baseline or a policy is requested, assessed for the risk it creates, approved by a role authorized to accept that risk, recorded with a scope and an expiry, and tracked to closure or to a deliberate renewal - so an exception is a change somebody decided rather than a state nobody revisits.	3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5	PR.PS-01, ID.RA-07
Control of software on operational systems What software runs on an operational system, and how it got there, is controlled. Installation and update are performed by trained administrators through an approved route, on the authority of a recorded change, rather than by whoever has the credentials at the time; ordinary users cannot install software on systems that hold or reach sensitive information. Only supported versions from sources the organization has established are legitimate are used, license entitlement is held for each, and the vendor’s integrity check on the package is verified before it is applied. A register records what is installed where, so the question of whether a newly announced vulnerability affects the estate is answered from a record rather than a survey. Software that has reached end of support is removed, or its retention is an approved decision with compensating controls and a date, rather than being left because nothing has broken. A previous version is retained and a rollback path is available before a change is applied, and the change is tested somewhere other than production first. Source code and development tooling are not installed on operational systems, and anything installed for a one-off purpose is removed when that purpose ends. The rule is enforced technically and not only administratively: the organization identifies the software it has authorized, and the system permits that software to execute while denying everything else - a deny-all, permit-by-exception allowlist, reviewed and updated on a defined cadence rather than assembled once - so program execution is prevented wherever it falls outside the policies, rules and authorization conditions the organization has set. Software a user installs for themselves is governed by its own stated policy: what a user may install, what requires a request and an approval, what is forbidden outright, and how compliance with that policy is monitored on a defined cadence rather than assumed. MOBILE CODE - the code that arrives with content and runs on the receiving system, such as scripts, applets, embedded macros and active content in documents and email - is defined into acceptable and unacceptable categories with the reasoning recorded, and its use is authorized, monitored and controlled by mechanism rather than by instruction. The allowlist reaches below the application. Only authorized software LIBRARIES - the shared and system modules a process loads at run time - may be loaded, and anything outside that set is blocked from loading rather than merely discouraged. Only authorized SCRIPTS execute, established by digital signature and version control rather than by the file happening to sit in the right place. Both sets are reassessed on a defined cadence. Software found installed that is not on the authorized list is removed from use or covered by a documented exception, and the estate is reviewed for that on a defined cadence rather than at the next audit. Browsers and email clients are governed as their own case, because they are where untrusted content arrives: only fully supported ones are permitted to run, and only at the version the vendor currently ships. Their plugins, extensions and add-ons are restricted on the same terms - anything unauthorized or no longer needed is uninstalled or disabled rather than left because somebody once installed it.	3.4.8, 3.4.9, 3.13.13	PR.PS-02, PR.PS-05
Logging & monitoring Security-relevant events - including successful and failed log-in attempts - are logged, protected, retained, and reviewed for anomalies, and the discrepancies that review finds are reported to the people who act on them. The review runs on a defined cadence and covers the records of system activity as a set - the audit logs, the reports of who accessed what, and the record of security incidents - rather than the log stream alone. For those records to be correlated into one sequence of events, the systems producing them agree on the time: every in-scope system synchronizes its clock to a single approved reference source, the source and the tolerance the organization will accept are specified rather than left to defaults, and timestamps are recorded in an unambiguous form so a reader does not have to infer a time zone. Synchronization is monitored in its own right - a system that drifts beyond tolerance or loses its source raises an alert, because a clock that is wrong makes an investigation reach the wrong conclusion rather than no conclusion - and where equipment cannot be synchronized, its offset is known and recorded so its records can still be placed. Timestamps are generated from the system’s own clock, expressed in Coordinated Universal Time or a recorded offset from it, and cut to a granularity the organization has stated rather than to whatever the platform defaults to. All of this rests on a documented audit and accountability policy with supporting procedures, aligned with the laws and obligations that apply to the organization, issued to the roles it binds, owned by a named role, and reviewed on a defined cadence. WHAT A RECORD CONTAINS is specified rather than accepted: every audit record establishes what type of event occurred, when it occurred, where it occurred, the source it came from, the outcome - success or failure - and the identity of any individual, subject or object associated with it, plus whatever further fields the organization has decided it needs to reconstruct an event afterwards. Because every person holds an account of their own, the identity a record carries resolves to one named individual rather than to a shared or generic login, so an action can be traced to whoever actually took it and that person can be held accountable for it - which is the whole reason the identity field is mandatory rather than useful. WHICH EVENTS ARE LOGGED is decided and then kept under review rather than configured once: the set of event types selected for logging is agreed with the roles who investigate, is reviewed on a defined cadence and again after an incident that showed the set was wrong, and is updated as a result - so the log answers the questions being asked now instead of the ones somebody anticipated at build. Storage is sized for that: enough capacity is allocated to hold the volume produced for the retention period the organization has set, and records are retained for that period specifically so an investigation after the fact is possible and so regulatory and internal obligations are met, rather than for as long as the disk happens to last. When the logging process itself fails - the pipeline stops, the store fills, a source goes silent - a defined role is alerted within a defined time and the organization takes the response it decided on in advance, because a logging failure is the one failure the logs cannot tell you about. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS are supported by machinery rather than by reading. Automated mechanisms integrate the review, analysis and reporting of audit records into a single process, and records drawn from separate repositories are correlated so the organization sees one organization-wide picture of activity instead of several partial ones. A reduction and reporting capability supports on-demand review, analysis and reporting and the investigation of an incident, and it does so without altering the original records or their ordering; it lets an analyst filter, sort and search records by the criteria the organization has defined, so events of interest surface in time to matter. THE RECORDS THEMSELVES ARE PROTECTED as an asset. Audit information and the logging tools that produce it are protected from unauthorized access, modification and deletion, a defined role is alerted when evidence of tampering is detected, and the ability to manage the logging function - what is collected, what is retained, what is deleted - is restricted to a named subset of privileged users rather than being available to every administrator whose activity it records. MONITORING runs on top of the record. The organization monitors its systems to detect attack and indicators of potential attack, unauthorized local, network and remote connections, and use that is outside what it has authorized; it identifies that use against defined criteria for what unusual looks like. Inbound and outbound communications traffic is watched for those conditions specifically, because exfiltration and command traffic look ordinary unless somebody has said what ordinary is. Automated tools and mechanisms support analysis close to real time rather than at the next review, and when the system produces an indication of compromise or potential compromise a defined role is alerted. What monitoring finds is reported to the people who act on it, at the frequency the organization has set. WHICH SOURCES ARE COLLECTED is decided rather than left to whatever a platform emits by default. Access to information the organization has classified as sensitive is logged, including modification and disposal and not only reading. DNS queries, URL requests and command-line activity are collected where the asset supports it, because those three are what an investigation reconstructs an intrusion from, and network traffic flow records are collected from the network devices so that movement between systems can be reviewed and alerted on. Logs from the service providers the organization depends on are collected too, so authentication, user-management and data-lifecycle events that happen outside its own estate sit inside the same record. Collection and retention are centralized so far as the estate allows, into a platform that correlates sources rather than storing them side by side, and security event alerting is centralized on top of it so that a pattern spanning two sources raises one alert to one place. The alerting thresholds are tuned on a defined cadence rather than set once, because an alert stream nobody can read is the same as no alerting at all. Time synchronization uses more than one source: at least two reference sources are configured wherever an asset supports it, so losing one does not silently leave the estate drifting. WHAT IS WATCHED includes people as well as machines: the activity of personnel and their use of the organization’s technology are monitored against what has been authorized for them and against what the organization has told them is monitored, so misuse and a compromised account surface from the same record. Analysis goes past the alert to the activity behind it - what else the same account, host or address did before and after, and whether the separate events form one sequence - so a potentially adverse event is understood rather than merely counted. And each such event is scoped before it is handed on: the estimated impact and the reach of it - which systems, which data, which accounts, over what period - is established from the correlated record and carried into the incident assessment rather than left for the responder to rebuild.	3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 3.3.9, 3.14.6, 3.14.7	DE.CM-09, PR.PS-04, DE.CM-03, DE.AE-02, DE.AE-03, DE.AE-04
Network security controls Firewalls/segmentation and network controls restrict traffic to and from sensitive environments. The networks themselves are managed as assets with owners: what exists is documented, traffic is permitted by rule rather than by default, the rules are reviewed and the ones nobody can justify are removed, and devices connecting are authenticated rather than trusted for being on the wire. NETWORK SERVICES are treated as a separate question from the network itself, and the same question is asked whether the service is run in-house or bought: for each one - connectivity and transit, remote access, name resolution, filtering, load balancing and delivery, wireless, voice and real-time communications - the organization identifies the security mechanisms it must apply, the service levels it must meet and the management requirements that come with it, and writes them into the agreement with the provider or into the internal service definition before anything depends on it. That includes what authentication, encryption and connection controls the service enforces, the availability and capacity it commits to, who may connect and how that is decided, what it monitors and reports and to whom, and the organization’s right to verify that what was agreed is what is delivered. Services are reviewed against those terms on a cadence, and a service that cannot demonstrate them is treated as a recorded risk rather than as a working arrangement. All of it rests on a documented system and communications protection policy with supporting procedures, issued to the roles it binds, owned by a named role and reviewed on a defined cadence. THE BOUNDARY is drawn narrowly and deliberately: the number of external connections into the organization’s systems is limited rather than allowed to accumulate, each external telecommunications service terminates on a managed interface that enforces the organization’s traffic flow policy, and any exception granted to that policy is documented with the need it serves, the systems it applies to and a duration, and is reviewed and removed when the need ends. Connections BETWEEN the organization’s own system components are governed on the same terms rather than trusted for being internal: each is individually authorized, its interface characteristics, security requirements and the nature of the information communicated are documented, the conditions under which it will be terminated are stated in advance, and its continued need is reviewed on a cadence. A network connection is torn down at the end of the session it serves, or after a defined period of inactivity, rather than left open until something else closes it. Components the public can reach - the website, the mail and web gateways, the API front end, anything published to the internet - sit on subnetworks physically or logically separated from the internal network, so reaching a public component does not place the caller inside the estate behind it. WHERE INFORMATION ITSELF MAY TRAVEL is controlled as well as the traffic that carries it: the flows permitted for each classification of information - between internal systems, out to an external party, from a more trusted zone into a less trusted one, and out of the organization altogether - are decided in advance and recorded as approved authorizations, and the enforcement points are configured to those authorizations rather than to a general instruction to be careful, so an unapproved flow is blocked by a rule somebody wrote instead of being permitted because nobody wrote one. VOICE AND REAL-TIME COMMUNICATIONS are governed as a service in their own right rather than as ordinary traffic: usage restrictions and implementation guidance are written for Voice over IP and the conferencing and messaging platforms beside it, a deployment is authorized before it carries a call, and its use is monitored and controlled - because a softphone, a conferencing bridge or a SIP trunk is a path for audio out of a room and a route into the network, not only a convenience. Availability is defended as well as confidentiality: the effects of denial-of-service events - the types the organization has decided it must withstand - are limited or absorbed by controls chosen for that purpose, with the capacity and the protective mechanisms sized against a stated expectation rather than against the traffic seen so far. NAME AND ADDRESS RESOLUTION is treated as security infrastructure. Where the organization is authoritative for a namespace, its responses carry data origin authentication and integrity verification artifacts so a resolver can validate them, and the security status of each child zone is published along with the material needed to verify the chain when a child zone is operated separately. Where the organization resolves names, its resolvers request and verify those artifacts on the responses they receive from authoritative sources rather than accepting an answer because it arrived. The resolution service itself is architected for fault tolerance and separates its internal and external roles, so an outage or a compromise on one side does not carry to the other. THE NETWORK ESTATE IS MAINTAINED as an asset in its own right. Devices run releases the vendor still supports, and their versions are reviewed on a defined cadence so end of support arrives as a planned replacement; their configuration is held as version-controlled infrastructure-as-code and their management interfaces are reached only over protocols that authenticate and encrypt the session; authentication, authorization and accounting for network access are centralized rather than held device by device; and the protocols used for management and for carrying traffic are chosen from those still considered sound rather than from those the equipment happens to default to. Architecture diagrams and the supporting network documentation are maintained and reviewed on a defined cadence rather than drawn once at build. Name resolution is pointed somewhere trusted: assets resolve through resolvers the organization controls or has decided are reputable, rather than through whatever a network hands them. DETECTION AND ENFORCEMENT sit in the path as well as beside it. Intrusion detection watches network traffic for malicious activity; intrusion prevention blocks it where the organization has decided blocking is appropriate; traffic is filtered at the application layer through a proxy, application-layer firewall or gateway where a port-and-address decision is not enough; and access is controlled at the port a device connects to, the device authenticating by 802.1X or an equivalent before it is on the network rather than being trusted for having reached a socket. The documentation is kept as an explicit REPRESENTATION of what is authorized: the network communication the organization permits, and the data flows inside its own estate and across its boundary to external parties, are drawn and maintained as a current picture rather than reconstructed from firewall rules when somebody asks for one. The networks and the network services running on them are monitored on the same terms, so a potentially adverse event - an unexpected flow, a service behaving unlike its baseline, traffic to somewhere nothing should be talking to - is found by watching rather than reported by its consequences. TRUSTED AND UNTRUSTED is a boundary with two directions rather than one: traffic entering the estate from any network the organization does not control is admitted only where a rule allows it, traffic leaving for such a network is restricted on the same terms rather than permitted for having originated inside, and a packet arriving from outside that claims an internal source address is discarded at the boundary rather than routed on the strength of what it says about itself.	3.1.3, 3.13.1, 3.13.5, 3.13.6, 3.13.9, 3.13.14	PR.IR-01, ID.AM-03, DE.CM-01
Vulnerability management Regular scanning, prioritization, and remediation of vulnerabilities across systems and applications, fed by current information about threats and weaknesses collected from outside the organization as well as from its own scans - vendor and industry security advisories for the software actually in use, and the threat feeds, bulletins and sector reporting that describe how systems like these are being attacked now - which is gathered continuously rather than at the next scan, evaluated for whether it applies here, and used to decide what is looked for and what is fixed first. The set of vulnerabilities the scanner actually looks for is updated on a defined cadence and whenever new ones are identified and reported, so a scan reflects what is known today rather than what the tool shipped with. Scans that need to see inside a system are given the privileged access to do so, granted deliberately to the scanning activity for the components that require it rather than left to run blind and report clean. Whether a fix is actually present is confirmed by automated mechanisms that report, per component, which security-relevant software and firmware updates are installed - so remediation is evidenced by the estate rather than by a closed ticket. The organization also runs a PUBLIC intake: a reporting channel that anybody outside the organization can find and use to report a vulnerability they have discovered in its systems or products, with a stated scope, a stated way to report, an acknowledgment, and a route into the same triage and remediation process everything else uses. All of this rests on a documented system and information integrity policy with supporting procedures, issued to the roles it binds, owned by a named role and reviewed on a defined cadence. The scanning and the fixing are each defined rather than assumed. Internal assets are scanned automatically on a defined cadence, both with credentials and without, because the two find different things - one shows what is installed, the other shows what somebody with no account can see. Externally exposed assets are scanned on their own cadence, which is at least as frequent, because they are reachable by everyone. Patching is automated for operating systems and, on the same terms and cadence, for the applications running on them, so an application left to be updated by whoever notices is not the gap. Remediation runs to a documented, risk-based strategy - what is fixed first, within what period, and who may approve an exception - reviewed on a defined cadence rather than written once. The public intake is governed by a written vulnerability handling policy that names how to report, who is responsible for handling a report, and the steps from intake through assignment and remediation to remediation testing, with reports tracked in a system that records a severity rating and the timing of identification, analysis and remediation, so how long the organization takes is a measured number rather than an impression.	3.11.2, 3.11.3, 3.14.1	ID.RA-01, ID.RA-08
Resilience & Continuity
Backups Regular, tested backups of critical data and systems with defined retention, each one a RETRIEVABLE EXACT COPY of the data it protects - complete and restorable, not a partial or lossy snapshot - including a copy taken before equipment holding that data is moved. Backup information is tested on a defined cadence to verify that the media are still reliable and the information still has its integrity - a restore actually performed, not a job that reported success - and it is protected by cryptographic mechanisms so a copy obtained by somebody who should not have it discloses nothing and cannot be altered undetected. Copies are held somewhere other than where the original lives: an alternate storage site is established, with the agreements needed to store backups there and to retrieve them when they are wanted, carrying security controls equivalent to those at the primary site rather than weaker ones because it is only a copy. The alternate site is chosen far enough from the primary that the same fire, flood, outage or regional event is unlikely to take both, and the organization identifies in advance the problems that would make the site hard to reach during a wide-area disruption - roads, transport, staff availability, network dependency - and states explicit mitigation actions for each rather than discovering them on the day. The recovery itself is a documented process and not only a schedule: it states which assets are in scope for recovery, the order in which they are brought back, and how the backup data is protected while it waits, and it is reviewed and updated on a defined cadence and whenever a change to the organization would alter it. Recovery data carries protection EQUIVALENT to the data it copies rather than weaker protection because it is a copy. And at least one instance of it is ISOLATED - held offline, off-site, or in a separately controlled service, out of reach of the credentials and the network paths that operate the live environment - so an event that reaches production does not also reach the copy that would undo it. Verification is performed at the point of USE as well as on the cadence: before a backup or any other restoration asset is relied on to bring a system back, its integrity is checked against the value recorded when it was taken and the check is logged - so a restoration does not carry corrupted or tampered data into a system that has just been cleaned.	3.8.9	PR.DS-11, RC.RP-03
Incident response A documented, tested plan to detect, triage, contain, remediate, and communicate security incidents, and to mitigate - so far as is practicable - the harmful effect of a use or disclosure of personal data the organization knows breached its own policies or the law. Each incident is recorded together with its outcome - what happened, what was done about it and how it ended - as a record of that incident, which is a different artifact from the plan being documented. The mitigation duty runs to violations by the organization itself AND to violations by the processors, vendors and other parties handling that data on its behalf: the plan reaches an incident somebody else caused with the organization’s data, so learning of one triggers the same containment and remediation as an incident inside its own walls rather than a request that the other party deal with it. Where an incident carries a duty to tell someone outside the organization, the plan discharges it on the clock the applicable law sets - and, where the organization has itself committed to a timeframe for telling people, on that commitment too, whether or not a statute stands behind it - rather than whenever the investigation happens to conclude: whether an incident is notifiable is decided against written criteria rather than argued after the fact, the regulator or supervisory authority is notified inside the deadline that regime states and inside any shorter or additional timeframe the organization has committed to, the people whose data is affected are told where the risk to them warrants it and, independently of that threshold, wherever the organization’s own privacy commitments say they will be told - so individual notification is never conditioned solely on a statutory risk test - and any other party that law or those commitments require to be notified is told on the same terms, and where a deadline is missed the notification itself explains the delay instead of passing over it. What a notification carries is fixed in advance rather than composed under pressure: to a regulator it describes at least the nature of what happened, including where possible the categories and the approximate number of people affected and of records involved; names a contact point - the data protection officer where there is one, otherwise whoever can answer - from whom more can be obtained; describes the likely consequences; and describes the measures taken or proposed to address it, including where appropriate the measures that will mitigate its adverse effects. Where all of that cannot honestly be given at once, it is given in phases without further undue delay rather than held back until the picture is complete, and each phase says what is still outstanding. The communication to the people affected describes what happened in clear and plain language and carries the same contact point, likely consequences and measures. Every compromise of personal data is documented whether or not it turned out to be notifiable - the facts of it, its effects, and the remedial action taken - in enough detail that a regulator reviewing the file can verify for itself that the notification decision was the right one. Recovery is part of the plan rather than something that follows it: service and data are restored to a state the organization has established is clean, the restoration is verified before the system is handed back to use, the cause is determined rather than inferred from the symptom, and the weakness the incident exposed is fixed - with the plan itself updated for what the incident showed about it. Between the report and the response sits an assessment step that is a duty of its own: every reported event is assessed against written categorization and prioritization criteria by people competent to apply them, and the decision - whether this event is an incident, and at what severity - is recorded with the reasoning, so two assessors reach the same answer and an event judged not to be an incident is a decision somebody made rather than a report that went quiet. Learning is treated as a duty separate from fixing the incident in front of you: the types, volumes and costs of incidents are quantified and reviewed as a set for what the pattern says, and what is learned is pushed back into the controls, the risk assessment, the awareness material and the assessment criteria themselves rather than staying in the report of the incident that produced it. The plan is a documented incident response policy with supporting procedures, issued to the roles it binds, owned by a named role, and reviewed and updated on a defined cadence. The people the plan assigns roles to are trained for them: within a defined period of taking the role, again when the system or the plan changes in a way that affects it, and on a defined cadence thereafter, with the content revised for what exercises and real incidents have shown. The capability is TESTED rather than assumed - on a defined cadence, using tests the organization has chosen for the purpose, such as a tabletop, a walkthrough, a simulation or a live exercise - and that testing is coordinated with the organizational elements that own the related plans, incident response and contingency planning in particular, so the two do not each assume the other. Handling and reporting are supported by automated mechanisms rather than run by hand at the worst moment: detection, triage, tracking, evidence collection and the routing of a report are automated so far as the organization’s systems allow, and the reports that must go outside are produced and sent by mechanism rather than composed under pressure. The roles the plan assigns are named across the functions an incident actually needs and not security alone - legal, IT, information security, facilities, communications, human resources, the responders and the analysts - and the assignment is reviewed on a defined cadence. So are the CHANNELS: a primary and a secondary mechanism for communicating and reporting during an incident are chosen in advance, on the understanding that the ordinary one may be the thing that is unavailable or compromised, and both are reviewed on the same cadence. The plan reaches the parties outside the organization that an incident actually involves: the suppliers and other third parties whose services, staff or systems would be part of the response are named in it, take part in the planning and the exercises, and are called on during response and recovery on terms agreed in advance rather than negotiated during the event. ESCALATION is a defined step and not a judgment call - the plan states the conditions under which an incident is escalated or elevated, whether by severity, by elapsed time, by the functions it has reached or by the obligations it triggers, who it goes to at each step, and what changes when it gets there. The analysis establishes what actually took place during the incident as well as why it happened, and the incident’s magnitude - how many systems, records and people it reached, and over what period - is estimated as the investigation proceeds and then VALIDATED against the evidence rather than left at the first number anybody said out loud. Notification runs to internal stakeholders as well as external ones, so the functions inside the organization that have to act on an incident are told on the same defined terms as the parties outside it. And containment is followed by ERADICATION as a separate act: the malicious code, the unauthorized access and the persistence left behind are removed and their removal is confirmed, so a contained incident is not mistaken for a finished one.	3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3	RS.MA-01, GV.SC-08, ID.IM-04, DE.AE-08, RS.MA-03, RS.MA-04, RS.AN-03, RS.AN-08, RS.CO-02, RS.MI-01, RS.MI-02
People & Culture
Personnel security (HR) Background screening, confidentiality agreements, and onboarding/offboarding security steps. Before a person is given access to sensitive data, and again whenever their role changes, a documented determination is made that the access their work calls for is appropriate to it - the screening informs that decision but is not the decision. What screening may ask is itself bounded: inquiries about a candidate’s health, disability or medical history are not made, and medical examinations are not required, before a conditional offer of the role has been made, and where such inquiries or examinations are made after an offer they are applied to everyone entering that role rather than to the individuals somebody chose to ask. Access is ended when their employment, or any other arrangement under which they worked for the organization, comes to an end, and whenever that determination says they should no longer hold it. The security responsibilities a person carries are stated in the terms under which they are engaged - in the employment contract or the equivalent agreement for a contractor or temporary worker - together with the organization’s own obligations to them, the duties that continue after the engagement ends and for how long, and what happens if the terms are broken; the terms are accepted before access is given. At the end of an engagement, and on a change of role that removes the need, every asset the person holds is returned and the return is recorded against the inventory rather than assumed - devices, media, tokens and keys, documents and any organization information held on equipment they own - and where information exists only on equipment the organization is not taking back, its transfer and deletion are performed and confirmed before the person leaves. The practice is governed by a documented personnel security policy with supporting procedures, issued to the roles it binds, owned by a named role and reviewed on a defined cadence. Security and privacy responsibilities are written into the POSITION DESCRIPTION for each role rather than only into the contract everybody signs, so what a particular job is accountable for is visible when it is advertised, filled, evaluated and re-scoped - and the descriptions are revised when the responsibilities change.	3.9.1	GV.RR-04
Security awareness training Ongoing security and data-handling awareness training for all personnel, with completion tracking, and periodic security updates - reminders, bulletins and alerts - issued to the workforce between training cycles. New joiners are trained within a defined period of starting, anyone whose work is affected is retrained within a defined period after a material change to the policies or procedures, and every completion is recorded. The program itself rests on a documented awareness and training policy with supporting procedures, issued to the people and roles it binds, owned by a named role, and reviewed and updated on a defined cadence rather than at whatever point somebody notices it is stale. The curriculum names two threats explicitly, because both are answered by a person rather than by a system. The first is INSIDER THREAT: what the potential indicators look like - unexplained access outside a role, bulk copying, hostility after a disciplinary or a passed-over promotion, working around a control rather than raising it - and where to report a concern about a colleague, without the reporter being asked to conclude anything. The second is SOCIAL ENGINEERING AND SOCIAL MINING: the phishing message, the pretext phone call, the urgent request from an apparent executive, the person following somebody through a door, and the slower pattern of harmless-seeming questions that assembles into an answer nobody would have given at once - together with the instruction to report both the attempts that worked and those that did not. The curriculum is stated as a set of topics rather than left to whoever assembles the material. AUTHENTICATION: how multi-factor authentication works and why it is required, what makes a passphrase strong, and how credentials are stored and never shared. DATA HANDLING: how to identify sensitive information and how to store, transfer, archive and destroy it, together with the clear screen and clear desk habits that go with it - locking a screen on standing up, clearing a whiteboard at the end of a meeting, and putting paper and portable media away rather than leaving them out. UNINTENTIONAL EXPOSURE: the ways data leaves by accident, such as a message sent to the wrong recipient, a portable device left behind, or a file published to a wider audience than intended. INCIDENTS: how to recognize that something may be an incident and how to report it without first establishing that it is. MISSING UPDATES: how to tell that an asset is not receiving its security updates, and to report a failure of an automated patching tool rather than assume somebody is watching it. INSECURE NETWORKS: the risk of connecting to and sending organizational data over networks the organization does not control, including what is expected of a home network where people work from one. And beyond the common curriculum, ROLE-SPECIFIC training is given where a role carries specific risk - system administration, secure development, and the roles most likely to be targeted directly.	3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3	PR.AT-01, PR.AT-02
Physical & Environmental
Equipment maintenance Equipment is maintained so it keeps working, and the maintenance itself is treated as an activity with security consequences rather than as a purely operational one. Servicing follows the supplier’s recommended intervals and specifications, and is carried out only by personnel the organization has authorized for it, whether internal or from a supplier under an agreement that binds them to its confidentiality and security requirements. A record is kept of faults - suspected as well as actual - and of the maintenance performed, so a pattern of failures is visible and the state of any given item is known. Where maintenance requires equipment to leave the site or a third party to have access to what it holds, the information is removed, or the media taken out, or the third party is covered by an arrangement that permits the access, before the work starts rather than during it; insurance and warranty conditions are checked at the same point. Remote maintenance sessions are authorized, authenticated, time-bounded and logged. After maintenance, the equipment is inspected and its security configuration confirmed before it is returned to service, because a service visit is a common way for a setting to be reset without anyone noticing. The practice is governed by a documented maintenance policy with supporting procedures, issued to the roles it binds, owned by a named role and reviewed on a defined cadence. Maintenance is CONTROLLED as an event: it is scheduled, approved and monitored, and a record is kept of the date and time, who performed it, what was done and which components were replaced, whether the work happened on site or elsewhere. Equipment removed from the premises for service is sanitized of the organization’s information first, and where that is not possible the removal is explicitly approved by a role authorized to approve it. THE TOOLS, TECHNIQUES AND MECHANISMS used to maintain a system are controlled in their own right, and the method is approved on the same terms as the instrument: which tools are approved is decided, the techniques and mechanisms by which maintenance may be carried out are approved and recorded rather than left to the technician on the day, their use is controlled and monitored, previously approved tools are reviewed on a cadence and withdrawn where they are no longer appropriate, the tools personnel bring with them are inspected for improper or unauthorized modification before they touch a system, and any media carrying diagnostic or test programs is scanned for malicious code before it is used. Maintenance equipment holding organizational information does not simply leave: it is verified to hold none, or sanitized, or retained by the organization, or its removal is explicitly authorized by a role empowered to do so. NONLOCAL MAINTENANCE - work performed over a network connection rather than at the machine - is approved and monitored, allowed only where the system permits it, authenticated with multi-factor authentication rather than a single shared credential, logged for the whole session, and terminated with the connection torn down when the work is finished rather than left standing. THE PEOPLE are authorized too: a list of authorized maintenance personnel is maintained, their authorizations are verified before access, only authorized personnel perform work, and anyone without the required access authorization is supervised throughout by somebody who has it and who has the technical competence to see what is being done. Support and spare parts for the components the organization cannot run without are obtained within a defined time of a failure, arranged in advance rather than sourced during the outage. Where a component is sent out for service or repair, configuration control over it is maintained while it is away and again after it is serviced and before it goes back into use, so what returns is what left. Maintenance has an end: hardware that can no longer be maintained to the standard the organization requires - parts unobtainable, the supplier’s support withdrawn, a fault rate past what the record will bear - is replaced or removed from service on a decision that names the risk it would otherwise carry, rather than kept running because it still starts.	3.7.1, 3.7.2, 3.7.3, 3.7.4, 3.7.5, 3.7.6	PR.PS-03
Physical security Physical access to facilities and equipment holding sensitive data is restricted and monitored, and a person’s access is validated against the role or function that justifies it rather than only logged; visitors are controlled as a case of their own, and so is access to software programs held for testing and revision. The facility and the equipment in it are safeguarded against tampering and theft as well as against unauthorized entry, and so is the SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE the systems depend on - the power feed and its distribution, the cabling and patching, the cooling and environmental plant, the fire detection and suppression, and the points at which communications enter the building - which is protected and monitored on the same terms rather than treated as building services somebody else owns, because a system is stopped as surely by reaching its power or its cooling as by reaching its data. The people who have to reach the site and the equipment when a continuity or recovery plan is invoked can still get in, by a route that is planned rather than improvised; and repairs and modifications to the physical security components of a facility - doors, locks, walls, and the hardware that controls entry - are recorded. The offices, rooms and facilities themselves are designed and fitted for that job rather than simply occupied: rooms holding sensitive information or the equipment that processes it are sited away from public access and from routes people pass through for other reasons, the building’s signage, directories and public information do not advertise where sensitive processing happens, doors, windows, walls and any shared boundary with another tenant are specified against the risk the room actually carries, and a room is locked and checked when it is unoccupied rather than left secured by whoever was last out. Monitoring is continuous rather than periodic: the premises are watched for unauthorized physical access by detection suited to the site - intruder alarms, cameras, contact and motion detection, staffed reception or patrols - covering every way in including delivery and fire doors and including the hours nobody is there, with an alarm going to somebody who responds and a stated response. The monitoring system is protected in its own right, so its configuration, its coverage and its recordings cannot be altered or read by the people it is watching, and recordings are retained and handled under the privacy rules that apply to them. The detection is specified rather than generic: intrusion alarms and surveillance equipment are employed as the means of monitoring physical access, and what they cover, what raises an alarm and who responds is decided in advance. Visitors are escorted for the whole time they are inside a controlled area and their activity while there is monitored, rather than being signed in at a desk and then left to move around; that applies to contractors, delivery and service personnel and auditors alike, and where somebody is authorized to work unaccompanied that is a recorded decision rather than a courtesy. Visitors leave a record: who came, who they were visiting, when they arrived and left, and the identification presented; the record is retained for a defined period, reviewed on a defined cadence rather than only after an incident, and anomalies in it are reported to a designated role. Deliveries and removals are controlled as a class - system components and equipment entering or leaving the facility are authorized before they move, the movement is monitored, and a record of what came in and what went out is kept - and the delivery area itself is arranged so that a delivery does not become unescorted access to the interior. PHYSICAL ACCESS IS LOGGED and not only permitted: entry to the facility and to each controlled area inside it is recorded - who entered, which area, and when - by the entry system, the staffed reception, the visitor register or a combination of them, and the log is retained for a defined period and reviewed on a defined cadence, so a person can be placed in a room at a time and matched against what the systems in it recorded. PHYSICAL ACCESS DEVICES are managed as a controlled inventory rather than handed out: the keys, locks, combinations, badges, cards, fobs and biometric enrollments that open a door are listed with the holder of each, issue and return are recorded against that person, the inventory is reconciled on a defined cadence, and combinations are changed and locks re-keyed when a device is lost or stolen, when a holder leaves or moves, and on the cadence the organization has set rather than only after an incident. All of this rests on a documented physical and environmental protection policy with supporting procedures, issued to the roles it binds, owned by a named role and reviewed on a defined cadence.	3.10.1, 3.10.2, 3.10.3, 3.10.4, 3.10.5	PR.AA-06, DE.CM-02

Beyond the pair

Where else this work counts

A framework is lit when a shared control above also maps to it. Unlit means none of them do — an absence, not a judgment about that standard.

Also reached by these 22 controls

AI Governance Essentials not reached
Amazon Appstore Child-Directed Apps not reached
Apple App Store Kids Category not reached
CIS Critical Security Controls also reached
COPPA also reached
ESG Essentials also reached
EU AI Act not reached
GDPR also reached
Google Play Families not reached
HIPAA also reached
ISO 9001 also reached
ISO/IEC 27001 also reached
ISO/IEC 42001 also reached
NIST AI Risk Management Framework not reached
NIST SP 800-53 also reached
PCI DSS also reached
PIPEDA also reached
SOC 2 also reached
SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404 also reached
US Employment Law - Federal Baseline also reached

Nearby pairs

The thesis

Why this is one project, not two

On a crosswalk-native model, NIST Cybersecurity Framework mostly lights up controls you already built for NIST SP 800-171. You’re not re-uploading the same screenshot for a second audit. You apply the framework and see the genuine delta worth working. That’s the whole idea behind collect once, comply everywhere.

Next step

Add NIST Cybersecurity Framework to the work you already did

Apply both frameworks in one workspace and see the overlap measured against the controls you already hold.

Start free with NIST SP 800-171 + NIST Cybersecurity Framework See all pairs