What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on AU-5 Response to Audit Logging Process Failures?

Audit and accountability policy; Procedures addressing response to audit processing failures; System design documentation; System security plan; Privacy plan; System configuration settings and associated documentation.

What is the most common gap auditors find on AU-5?

No defined personnel or roles are alerted when the audit logging process fails, and the alert time period is unset

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

`AU-5` Response to Audit Logging Process Failures

a. Alert organization-defined personnel or roles within organization-defined time period in the event of an audit logging process failure; and b. Take the following additional actions: organization-defined additional actions.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, AU-5. 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 · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Test of Mechanisms implementing system response to audit processing failures · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Audit and accountability policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing response to audit processing failures · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System design documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System security plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Privacy plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System configuration settings and associated documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
List of personnel to be notified in case of an audit processing failure · 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

No defined personnel or roles are alerted when the audit logging process fails, and the alert time period is unset
Additional actions for logging failure under AU-5 b, such as shutdown or overwrite rules, were never defined or configured

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-4(1) Audit Log Storage Capacity | Transfer to Alternate Storage · AU-5(1) Response to Audit Logging Process Failures | Storage Capacity Warning