What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on CA-3(6) Information Exchange | Transfer Authorizations?

Interconnection security agreements naming the parties authorised to transfer data; Authorisation records for the systems and individuals permitted to write across each interconnection; Evidence that write permission is checked before data is accepted.

What is the most common gap auditors find on CA-3(6)?

Interconnection agreements exist but nothing checks that the transferring party is authorised

FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · CA - Assessment, Authorization, and Monitoring

`CA-3(6)` Information Exchange | Transfer Authorizations

Verify that individuals or systems transferring data between interconnecting systems hold the requisite authorizations, meaning write permissions or privileges, before accepting such data.

Source: FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), CA-3(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

Vendor register / contract repository

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

Authorisation records for the systems and individuals permitted to write across each interconnection · Document repository
Evidence that write permission is checked before data is accepted · Identity provider / directory

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Interconnection security agreements naming the parties authorised to transfer data · 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

Interconnection agreements exist but nothing checks that the transferring party is authorised
Authorisations never re-reviewed after the interconnection goes live

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

CA-3 Information Exchange · CA-5 Plan of Action and Milestones