What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on IAM-06 Access Provisioning?

Access request and approval workflow documentation naming approvers per system; Sample of access tickets showing request, approval before grant, and fulfilment record; Notification records of access changes to the requester and owner; Reconciliation of granted access against approved requests.

What is the most common gap auditors find on IAM-06?

Access granted by administrators directly without a ticket

CSA CCM v4.1 · IAM - Identity & Access Management

`IAM-06` Access Provisioning

Define and run a process for provisioning identity access that approves each change to access to data and assets, records it and tells the people affected.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, IAM-06. 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

Document repository

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

Sample of access tickets showing request, approval before grant, and fulfilment record · Ticketing / ITSM
Notification records of access changes to the requester and owner · Document repository
Reconciliation of granted access against approved requests · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Access request and approval workflow documentation naming approvers per system · 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

Access granted by administrators directly without a ticket
Approval recorded after the access was already given
Machine and service identities provisioned outside the process

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

IAM-05 Least Privilege · IAM-07 Access Changes and Revocation