What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SEF-10 Points of Contact Maintenance?

Authority contact register listing regulators, law enforcement and other authorities per jurisdiction; Record of the last annual verification of the register, with reviewer and date; Procedure saying who may contact authorities and when; Evidence that the register is available to the incident response team.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SEF-10?

Contact list never revalidated, so names and numbers are stale

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

`SEF-10` Points of Contact Maintenance

The organisation keeps current contact details for the regulators that apply to it, national and local police and other authorities with legal jurisdiction, and it checks and refreshes that contact list every year at minimum.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, SEF-10. 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

Record of the last annual verification of the register, with reviewer and date · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Evidence that the register is available to the incident response team · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Authority contact register listing regulators, law enforcement and other authorities per jurisdiction · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedure saying who may contact authorities and when · 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

Contact list never revalidated, so names and numbers are stale
Only the home jurisdiction covered, not regions where data is hosted
Register held by one person and unavailable during an incident

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-09 Incident Records Management · STA-01 Supply Chain Risk Management Policies and Procedures