What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on IAM-08 Access Review?

Access review schedule with frequency per system tied to risk; Completed access recertification records with reviewer decisions; Evidence that access marked for removal was removed; Review scope covering conflicting access and privilege levels.

What is the most common gap auditors find on IAM-08?

Reviewers rubber-stamp without changes, with no challenge recorded

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

`IAM-08` Access Review

Review and re-approve identity access against least privilege and separation of duties at a frequency set by the organisation's risk tolerance, and in any case yearly and after any significant change.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, IAM-08. 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

Completed access recertification records with reviewer decisions · Document repository
Evidence that access marked for removal was removed · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Access review schedule with frequency per system tied to risk · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Review scope covering conflicting access and privilege levels · 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

Reviewers rubber-stamp without changes, with no challenge recorded
Revocations decided in the review but never actioned
Service identities excluded from recertification

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-07 Access Changes and Revocation · IAM-09 Segregation of Privileged Access Roles