What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on HRS-02 Acceptable Use of Technology Policy and Procedures?

Acceptable use policy with its approval record and version history; Signed or click-through acknowledgements from a sample of staff and contractors; Definition or inventory scope stating which owned and managed assets the rules cover (laptops, mobiles, SaaS tenants, cloud consoles); Records of disciplinary or corrective action taken under the policy; Evidence of the latest annual review and of a review triggered by a significant change.

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

Policy silent on personally owned devices that the organisation nonetheless manages

CSA CCM v4.1 · HRS - Human Resources

`HRS-02` Acceptable Use of Technology Policy and Procedures

Set out, approve, publish and enforce the conditions under which people may use assets the organisation owns or manages, and keep those conditions reviewed every year and again whenever a significant change occurs.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, HRS-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 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

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

Signed or click-through acknowledgements from a sample of staff and contractors · HR system / LMS
Records of disciplinary or corrective action taken under the policy · HR system / LMS
Evidence of the latest annual review and of a review triggered by a significant change · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Acceptable use policy with its approval record and version history · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Definition or inventory scope stating which owned and managed assets the rules cover (laptops, mobiles, SaaS tenants, cloud consoles) · 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

Policy silent on personally owned devices that the organisation nonetheless manages
No proof that users were told about the rules or accepted them
Review date passed with no update after new tools such as generative AI services were introduced

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

HRS-01 Background Screening Policy and Procedures · HRS-03 Clean Desk Policy and Procedures