What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 2.2 Ensure Authorized Software is Currently Supported?

Register field showing vendor support status and end-of-support date; Signed exceptions for unsupported software with mitigations and risk acceptance; Monthly support-status review log.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 2.2?

End-of-life operating systems kept without an exception

CIS Controls v8.1 · CIS Control 2: Inventory and Control of Software Assets

`2.2` Ensure Authorized Software is Currently Supported

Only software that the vendor still supports may be marked as authorised in the register. Unsupported software that the mission genuinely needs requires a written exception describing the compensating controls and the residual risk accepted; anything unsupported without such an exception is treated as unauthorised. Check support status of listed software monthly or more often. Implementation Groups: IG1, IG2 and IG3 (part of the IG1 essential cyber hygiene baseline, so every enterprise applies it). Asset type: Software. Security function: Identify.

Source: CIS Controls v8.1, 2.2. 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 CIS Controls v8.1 in the compliance library.

Scope: Implementation Groups: IG1, IG2, IG3. Security function: Identify; asset type: Software.

Each safeguard shows its Implementation Groups. IG1 is the essential baseline for every enterprise, IG2 adds to it, IG3 is all 153. Version 8.1 adds the Govern security function and asks for more processes to be documented; numbering is unchanged from v8.

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

Monthly support-status review log · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Register field showing vendor support status and end-of-support date · Vendor register / contract repository
Signed exceptions for unsupported software with mitigations and risk acceptance · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 1 of 3 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

End-of-life operating systems kept without an exception
Exceptions lacking a named risk owner
Support status checked annually rather than monthly

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

2.1 Establish and Maintain a Software Inventory · 2.3 Address Unauthorized Software