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

Audit and accountability policy; System security plan; Privacy plan; Procedures addressing audit review, analysis, and reporting; Reports of audit findings; Records of actions taken in response to reviews/analyses of audit records.

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

Audit record review is not performed at the organization-defined frequency, and no evidence of completed reviews is kept

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

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

a. Review and analyze system audit records organization-defined frequency for indications of organization-defined inappropriate or unusual activity and the potential impact of the inappropriate or unusual activity; b. Report findings to organization-defined personnel or roles; and c. Adjust the level of audit record review, analysis, and reporting within the system when there is a change in risk based on law enforcement information, intelligence information, or other credible sources of information.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, 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 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

Procedures addressing audit review, analysis, and reporting · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Reports of audit findings · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Records of actions taken in response to reviews/analyses of 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

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

Audit record review is not performed at the organization-defined frequency, and no evidence of completed reviews is kept
Review findings are not reported to defined roles, and review depth was not adjusted after credible threat intelligence changed risk

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(5) Response to Audit Logging Process Failures | Alternate Audit Logging Capability · AU-6(1) Audit Record Review, Analysis, and Reporting | Automated Process Integration