What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on AU-6 Audit Record Review, Analysis, and Reporting?

SSP AU-6 statement describing weekly review of audit records, the tools used and who receives reported findings; Weekly audit review records or SIEM case notes with findings escalated to the named personnel; Log review procedures with assigned analyst owners; Time synchronisation evidence across logging endpoints; Audit log integrity controls including write once storage or hashing; Audit and accountability policy with retention periods defined.

What is the most common gap auditors find on AU-6?

Clock drift across hosts breaks event correlation

FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · AU - Audit and Accountability

`AU-6` Audit Record Review, Analysis, and Reporting

Review and analyze audit records at least weekly (FedRAMP); report findings to defined personnel.

Source: FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), AU-6. 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

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

Audit log integrity controls including write once storage or hashing · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Weekly audit review records or SIEM case notes with findings escalated to the named personnel · SIEM / log platform
Time synchronisation evidence across logging endpoints · Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP AU-6 statement describing weekly review of audit records, the tools used and who receives reported findings · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Log review procedures with assigned analyst owners · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Audit and accountability policy with retention periods defined · Policy repository / GRC workspace
List of auditable events and log source inventory · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 1 system-held artefact from your SIEM / log platform on a schedule; put the documents under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Clock drift across hosts breaks event correlation
Privileged user activity not isolated for independent review
Critical log sources missing from the SIEM with no detection coverage
Audit log retention shorter than the policy mandated period

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

AU-5(2) Real-Time Alerts · AU-6(1) Automated Process Integration