What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on PS-02 Redundancy model?

Site pair topology diagram showing the separation distance between redundant locations; Failover test report from the most recent annual redundancy exercise; Availability clauses of the service level agreement mapped onto the redundancy design; Capacity figures proving the surviving site can carry full production load.

What is the most common gap auditors find on PS-02?

Second site sized only for partial load so failover silently degrades the service

BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) · C5: Physical Security

`PS-02` Redundancy model

Deliver the cloud service from two mutually redundant sites that both satisfy the provider's physical security requirements, sit far enough apart to give operational redundancy meeting agreed availability levels, and test that redundancy at least yearly.

Source: BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue), PS-02. 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

Failover test report from the most recent annual redundancy exercise · Backup / DR tooling

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Site pair topology diagram showing the separation distance between redundant locations · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Availability clauses of the service level agreement mapped onto the redundancy design · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Capacity figures proving the surviving site can carry full production load · 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

Second site sized only for partial load so failover silently degrades the service
Redundancy asserted on paper but never exercised within the last twelve months
Locations placed too close together to survive a single regional event
Secondary location held to weaker physical security controls than the primary

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

PS-01 Physical Security and Environmental Control Requirements · PS-03 Perimeter Protection