What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on CEK-05 Encryption Change Management?

Change procedure specific to cryptographic technology; Sample change records for KMS, HSM or algorithm changes with approvals; Notices of changes communicated to stakeholders or customers; Post-implementation review records.

What is the most common gap auditors find on CEK-05?

Crypto changes made through generic tickets without specialist review

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

`CEK-05` Encryption Change Management

A standard change management procedure is set up to take in changes from internal and external sources and to review, approve, implement and communicate changes affecting the technology used for cryptography, encryption and keys.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, CEK-05. 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

Key management / PKI

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

Sample change records for KMS, HSM or algorithm changes with approvals · Key management / PKI

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Post-implementation review records · Ticketing / ITSM

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Change procedure specific to cryptographic technology · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Notices of changes communicated to stakeholders or customers · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 1 of 4 artefacts that already live in a system (Key management / PKI); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Crypto changes made through generic tickets without specialist review
Customers not informed of changes affecting their keys
External triggers such as algorithm deprecation not captured

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-04 Encryption Algorithm · CEK-06 Encryption Change Cost Benefit Analysis