What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on AU-9(4) Protection of Audit Information | Access by Subset of Privileged Users?

Audit and accountability policy; System security plan; Privacy plan; Access control policy and procedures; Procedures addressing protection of audit information; System design documentation.

What is the most common gap auditors find on AU-9(4)?

Management of audit logging functionality is available to all privileged users rather than a defined subset

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

`AU-9(4)` Protection of Audit Information | Access by Subset of Privileged Users

Authorize access to management of audit logging functionality to only organization-defined subset of privileged users or roles.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, AU-9(4). 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

System-generated list of privileged users with access to management of audit functionality · Identity provider / directory

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Test of Mechanisms managing access to audit functionality · 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
Access control policy and procedures · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing protection of audit information · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System design documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System configuration settings and associated documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Access authorizations · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 1 system-held artefact from your Identity provider / directory 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

Management of audit logging functionality is available to all privileged users rather than a defined subset
The subset of privileged users or roles allowed to manage audit logging was never defined or reviewed

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-9(3) Protection of Audit Information | Cryptographic Protection · AU-9(5) Protection of Audit Information | Dual Authorization