What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 29 Host-based IDS/IPS (Very Good)?

Test of a simulated malicious action on a sample host, such as credential dumping, with the HIDS alert or block recorded; HIDS/HIPS policy export showing enabled behavioural and signature rule sets and which are in prevent versus detect mode; Agent deployment report reconciled to the server and workstation inventory, listing hosts without an active agent; Recent HIDS alerts with investigation outcomes and evidence rule updates are applied centrally.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 29?

Agents left permanently in detect-only mode so known malicious activity is logged but never blocked

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents · Detecting Cyber Security Incidents and Responding

`29` Host-based IDS/IPS (Very Good)

Host-based intrusion detection/prevention system to identify anomalous behaviour and known malicious activity.

Source: ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents, 29. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents in the compliance library.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

easy

to go live

Policy repository / GRC workspace

where the evidence lives

teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

HIDS/HIPS policy export showing enabled behavioural and signature rule sets and which are in prevent versus detect mode · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Agent deployment report reconciled to the server and workstation inventory, listing hosts without an active agent · Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)
Recent HIDS alerts with investigation outcomes and evidence rule updates are applied centrally · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Test of a simulated malicious action on a sample host, such as credential dumping, with the HIDS alert or block recorded · Identity provider / directory

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

none for this control

First move

Automate the pull from your Policy repository / GRC workspace. Version-controlled policy set with approval metadata; review dates tracked as records, not a calendar note.

Common gaps auditors find

Agents left permanently in detect-only mode so known malicious activity is logged but never blocked
Servers excluded from HIDS coverage for performance reasons with no documented risk acceptance
HIDS alerts stored locally on hosts and never forwarded to the monitoring team

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

28 Continuous incident detection and response (Excellent) · 30 Endpoint detection and response (Very Good)