What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on AU-13 Monitoring for Information Disclosure?

Audit and accountability policy; System security plan; Privacy plan; Procedures addressing information disclosure monitoring; System design documentation; System configuration settings and associated documentation.

What is the most common gap auditors find on AU-13?

The open-source information sites monitored for unauthorized disclosure and the monitoring frequency were never defined

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · AU - Audit and Accountability

`AU-13` Monitoring for Information Disclosure

a. Monitor organization-defined open-source information and/or information sites organization-defined frequency for evidence of unauthorized disclosure of organizational information; and b. If an information disclosure is discovered: 1. Notify organization-defined personnel or roles; and 2. Take the following additional actions: organization-defined additional actions.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, AU-13. 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

Monitoring records · SIEM / log platform
Test of Mechanisms implementing monitoring for information disclosure · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

System audit records · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Audit and accountability policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System security plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Privacy plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing information disclosure monitoring · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System design documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System configuration settings and associated documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 2 system-held artefacts 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

The open-source information sites monitored for unauthorized disclosure and the monitoring frequency were never defined
Discovered disclosures are not reported to the defined personnel or acted upon

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-12(4) Audit Record Generation | Query Parameter Audits of Personally Identifiable Information · AU-13(1) Monitoring for Information Disclosure | Use of Automated Tools