What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 2.6 Allowlist Authorized Libraries?

Library allowlisting or code integrity policy covering DLL and shared object loading; Block events from the enforcement log; Six-monthly policy review records.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 2.6?

Executables controlled but libraries left unrestricted

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

`2.6` Allowlist Authorized Libraries

Use technical controls so that only authorised libraries (DLL, OCX, SO and similar files) can be loaded into a running process, blocking any others. Reassess at least every six months. Implementation Groups: IG2 and IG3 (not in the IG1 baseline; applies from IG2 upward). Asset type: Software. Security function: Protect.

Source: CIS Controls v8.1, 2.6. 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: IG2, IG3. Security function: Protect; 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

Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)

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

Block events from the enforcement log · Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Six-monthly policy review records · Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Library allowlisting or code integrity policy covering DLL and shared object loading · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 1 of 3 artefacts that already live in a system (Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Executables controlled but libraries left unrestricted
Linux shared objects not covered
Exclusions added during incidents never removed

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

2.5 Allowlist Authorized Software · 2.7 Allowlist Authorized Scripts