What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on OPS-10 Logging and Monitoring - Concept?

Logging policy listing the event types classified as security relevant; Documented retention period per log source with the legal basis cited; Responsibility matrix naming owners of log configuration and of log review; Time synchronisation standard specifying the authoritative time sources.

What is the most common gap auditors find on OPS-10?

Policy enumerates log sources yet never defines which events matter

BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) · C5: Operations

`OPS-10` Logging and Monitoring - Concept

Establish written logging and monitoring policies for systems in the provider's area of responsibility that define which events could breach protection goals, how logs are activated, paused and stopped, their purpose and retention, role responsibilities, time synchronisation and legal obligations.

Source: BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue), OPS-10. 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

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

Responsibility matrix naming owners of log configuration and of log review · SIEM / log platform

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Logging policy listing the event types classified as security relevant · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Documented retention period per log source with the legal basis cited · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Time synchronisation standard specifying the authoritative time sources · 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

Policy enumerates log sources yet never defines which events matter
No rule stating who may pause or switch off logging on a system
Retention periods in the policy inconsistent with the platform configuration
No authoritative time source defined, so records across components cannot be correlated

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

OPS-09 Data Backup and Recovery - Storage · OPS-11 Logging and Monitoring - Metadata Management Concept