What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on IDM-05 Regular review of access rights?

Recertification campaign schedule with completion statistics for the most recent cycle; Signed reviewer attestations from the organisational unit owning the reviewed population; Deviation log capturing detection date alongside the date the right was actually amended; Justification of how the reviewer population was chosen for knowledge of the reviewed duties.

What is the most common gap auditors find on IDM-05?

Reviewers confirm whole lists in a single action with no sign of individual consideration

BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) · C5: Identity and Access Management

`IDM-05` Regular review of access rights

Review all assigned access rights at least once a year using authorised reviewers drawn from the owning organisational units who know the actual duties involved, and correct or withdraw any deviation found within seven days.

Source: BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue), IDM-05. 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 BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) in the compliance library.

The edition of the catalogue is not stamped here; check the edition your attestation is issued against.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

moderate

to go live

SIEM / log platform

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

Deviation log capturing detection date alongside the date the right was actually amended · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Signed reviewer attestations from the organisational unit owning the reviewed population · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Recertification campaign schedule with completion statistics for the most recent cycle · Document repository
Justification of how the reviewer population was chosen for knowledge of the reviewed duties · Document repository

First move

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

Common gaps auditors find

Reviewers confirm whole lists in a single action with no sign of individual consideration
Findings recorded correctly but the entitlement removal happens weeks after detection
Campaign scope covers named human users only and omits accounts driving automated processes

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

IDM-04 Withdraw or adjust access rights as the task area changes · IDM-06 Privileged access rights