What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on AC-18 Wireless Access?

SSP AC-18 statement stating whether wireless is used in the boundary, the permitted configuration (WPA3 Enterprise, 802.1X) and approval route; Wireless controller configuration export and the authorisation record for each approved SSID; Access control policy approved by the information security officer; Role-based access matrix mapped to job functions and data classifications; Account provisioning and deprovisioning workflow tickets with manager approvals; Quarterly privileged access review attestations.

What is the most common gap auditors find on AC-18?

Service accounts excluded from periodic recertification

FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · AC - Access Control

`AC-18` Wireless Access

Establish configuration requirements, usage restrictions, authorize wireless access.

Source: FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), AC-18. 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 FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) in the compliance library.

A FedRAMP baseline is a subset of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, enhancements included.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

moderate

to go live

Identity provider / directory

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

Wireless controller configuration export and the authorisation record for each approved SSID · Identity provider / directory
Account provisioning and deprovisioning workflow tickets with manager approvals · Identity provider / directory

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Quarterly privileged access review attestations · Identity provider / directory

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP AC-18 statement stating whether wireless is used in the boundary, the permitted configuration (WPA3 Enterprise, 802.1X) and approval route · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Access control policy approved by the information security officer · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Role-based access matrix mapped to job functions and data classifications · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 2 of 6 artefacts that already live in a system (Identity provider / directory); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Service accounts excluded from periodic recertification
Stale accounts retained for terminated personnel beyond the 24 hour SLA
Privileged accounts shared across administrators without individual accountability

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

AC-17(4) Privileged Commands and Access · AC-18(1) Authentication and Encryption