What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on DP-1 Discover, classify, and label sensitive data?

Defined sensitive data scope; Discovery scan results per data store; Classification and labelling scheme with applied label counts; Named owner per sensitive data set.

What is the most common gap auditors find on DP-1?

classification policy with no discovery run behind it

Azure Security Benchmark v3 (renamed Microsoft cloud security benchmark) · Data Protection

`DP-1` Discover, classify, and label sensitive data

Maintain an inventory of sensitive data within the defined scope, using discovery tooling to find, classify and label it.

Source: Azure Security Benchmark v3 (renamed Microsoft cloud security benchmark), DP-1. 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 Azure Security Benchmark v3 (renamed Microsoft cloud security benchmark) in the compliance library.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

moderate

to go live

Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

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

Discovery scan results per data store · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Defined sensitive data scope · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Classification and labelling scheme with applied label counts · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Named owner per sensitive data set · Document repository

First move

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

Common gaps auditors find

classification policy with no discovery run behind it
scanning limited to structured stores, ignoring file shares and object storage
labels applied once and never refreshed as data moves

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

BR-4 Regularly test backup · DP-2 Monitor anomalies and threats targeting sensitive data