What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SEC10-BP05 Pre-provision access?

Responder role definitions and their permission sets; Pre-provisioned break-glass access procedure and approval path; Evidence that responder access uses temporary rather than long-lived credentials; Access test records confirming responders can reach the needed accounts.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SEC10-BP05?

root account used for incident response

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar · Incident Response

`SEC10-BP05` Pre-provision access

Pre-provision the access incident responders need, using temporary credentials and prepared elevation paths so investigation is not delayed by access requests during an event.

Source: AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar, SEC10-BP05. 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 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar in the compliance library.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

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

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Evidence that responder access uses temporary rather than long-lived credentials · Identity provider / directory
Access test records confirming responders can reach the needed accounts · Identity provider / directory

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Responder role definitions and their permission sets · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Pre-provisioned break-glass access procedure and approval path · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

root account used for incident response
permissions edited by hand during an incident
responder access never tested so gaps surface mid-incident

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

SEC10-BP04 Develop and test security incident response playbooks · SEC10-BP06 Pre-deploy tools