What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on IAM-11 Service Customers Approval for Agreed Privileged Access Roles?

Procedure describing customer approval for provider personnel access to customer content (for example, customer lockbox); List of agreed high-risk privileged roles derived from the risk assessment; Sample of access requests with the customer approval record; Contract or service terms describing the customer approval option.

What is the most common gap auditors find on IAM-11?

Customer approval feature exists but is not enabled or documented

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

`IAM-11` Service Customers Approval for Agreed Privileged Access Roles

Define, put in place and assess processes and procedures that let service customers, where relevant, take part in approving access to agreed privileged roles judged high risk by the organisation's risk assessment.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, IAM-11. 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

Sample of access requests with the customer approval record · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Procedure describing customer approval for provider personnel access to customer content (for example, customer lockbox) · Policy repository / GRC workspace
List of agreed high-risk privileged roles derived from the risk assessment · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Contract or service terms describing the customer approval option · Vendor register / contract repository

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

Customer approval feature exists but is not enabled or documented
High-risk roles not defined, so it is unclear which access needs customer approval
Emergency access bypasses customer approval without after-the-fact notice

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-10 Management of Privileged Access Roles · IAM-12 Unique Identities