What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on CEK-03 Data Protection?

Data flow and data store inventory showing encryption status; Encryption configuration for storage, databases and backups; TLS configuration scans for external and internal endpoints; Certificates of validation for the cryptographic modules used (for example FIPS 140-3); Design records for in-use protection such as confidential computing where applied.

What is the most common gap auditors find on CEK-03?

Internal traffic left unencrypted

CSA CCM v4.1 · CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management

`CEK-03` Data Protection

Data is protected at rest, in transit and, where it applies, in use, by means of cryptographic libraries certified against approved standards.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, CEK-03. 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 CSA CCM v4.1 in the compliance library.

Version 4.1 adds 11 controls (among them API security, log sanitisation and a service bill of materials) and renumbers several domains. CSA accepts v4.0.x during its transition; if your STAR assessment is still on v4.0.1, check the numbering against it.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

moderate

to go live

Backup / DR tooling

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

Encryption configuration for storage, databases and backups · Backup / DR tooling
TLS configuration scans for external and internal endpoints · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Certificates of validation for the cryptographic modules used (for example FIPS 140-3) · Document repository
Design records for in-use protection such as confidential computing where applied · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Data flow and data store inventory showing encryption status · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 2 of 5 artefacts that already live in a system (Backup / DR tooling); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Internal traffic left unencrypted
Libraries in use lack any certification
No assessment of where in-use protection applies

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

CEK-02 CEK Roles and Responsibilities · CEK-04 Encryption Algorithm