What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on AC-6(1) Least Privilege | Authorize Access to Security Functions?

Access control policy; Procedures addressing least privilege; List of security functions (deployed in hardware, software, and firmware) and security-relevant information for which access must be explicitly authorized; System configuration settings and associated documentation; System audit records; System security plan.

What is the most common gap auditors find on AC-6(1)?

Access to security functions such as audit settings and firewall configuration is not restricted to the organization-defined individuals or roles

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · AC - Access Control

`AC-6(1)` Least Privilege | Authorize Access to Security Functions

Authorize access for organization-defined individuals or roles to: (a) organization-defined security functions (deployed in hardware, software, and firmware); and (b) organization-defined security-relevant information.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, AC-6(1). 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 NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 in the compliance library.

Base controls and their enhancements. Which apply follows the baseline you are assessed against (for example FedRAMP Moderate or High, or the low, moderate and high baselines of SP 800-53B). Text in square brackets is a parameter your organisation sets.

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

System audit records · Identity provider / directory
Test of Mechanisms implementing least privilege functions · Identity provider / directory

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Access control policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing least privilege · Policy repository / GRC workspace
List of security functions (deployed in hardware, software, and firmware) and security-relevant information for which access must be explicitly authorized · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System configuration settings and associated documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System security plan · 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

Access to security functions such as audit settings and firewall configuration is not restricted to the organization-defined individuals or roles
Security-relevant information like filtering rules and cryptographic key settings was never identified, so access to it is not explicitly authorized

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-6 Least Privilege · AC-6(2) Least Privilege | Non-privileged Access for Nonsecurity Functions