What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SEF-06 Event Triage Processes?

Event triage procedure or runbook with classification and severity criteria; SIEM or SOAR rules and playbooks used to enrich and route alerts; Sample of triaged alerts showing classification decisions and escalations; Periodic review of false positive rates and triage effectiveness; Roles and shift coverage for the triage function.

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

Alerts triaged ad hoc with no written criteria

CSA CCM v4.1 · SEF - Security Incident Management, E-Discovery, & Cloud Forensics

`SEF-06` Event Triage Processes

The organisation has defined and operating processes, procedures and tooling that support the business in sorting security-related events, so genuine incidents are separated out and routed, and it evaluates how well that triage works.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, SEF-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

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 triaged alerts showing classification decisions and escalations · SIEM / log platform
Periodic review of false positive rates and triage effectiveness · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Event triage procedure or runbook with classification and severity criteria · Policy repository / GRC workspace
SIEM or SOAR rules and playbooks used to enrich and route alerts · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Roles and shift coverage for the triage function · 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

Alerts triaged ad hoc with no written criteria
Tooling generates alerts that nobody is assigned to review
Triage effectiveness never evaluated, so alert fatigue goes unaddressed

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

SEF-05 Incident Response Metrics · SEF-07 Incident Management and Response