What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 31 Hunt to discover incidents (Very Good)?

Hunt team roster and schedule showing the frequency of hunts and the analysts assigned to each cycle; Threat hunting plan listing hypotheses drawn from adversary tradecraft such as MITRE ATT&CK techniques and the data sources queried; Hunt reports for recent cycles recording queries run, systems and log sources covered and findings; Records of hunt findings converted into new detection rules or incident tickets.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 31?

Hunting done ad hoc after vendor bulletins, with no regular schedule or recorded hypotheses

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

`31` Hunt to discover incidents (Very Good)

Hunt to discover cyber security incidents based on knowledge of adversary tradecraft and analysis of logs, events and other data sources.

Source: ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents, 31. 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

moderate

to go live

Ticketing / ITSM

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

Records of hunt findings converted into new detection rules or incident tickets · Ticketing / ITSM

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Hunt reports for recent cycles recording queries run, systems and log sources covered and findings · SIEM / log platform

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Hunt team roster and schedule showing the frequency of hunts and the analysts assigned to each cycle · Document repository
Threat hunting plan listing hypotheses drawn from adversary tradecraft such as MITRE ATT&CK techniques and the data sources queried · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 1 of 4 artefacts that already live in a system (Ticketing / ITSM); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Hunting done ad hoc after vendor bulletins, with no regular schedule or recorded hypotheses
Hunts limited to the logs that happen to be retained, missing endpoint and authentication telemetry
Hunt findings never turned into standing detections, so the same gap is rediscovered each cycle

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

30 Endpoint detection and response (Very Good) · 32 Network-based IDS/IPS (Limited)