What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on CA-2(2) Control Assessments | Specialized Assessments?

Assessment, authorization, and monitoring policy; Procedures addressing control assessments; Control assessment plan; Control assessment report; Control assessment evidence; System security plan.

What is the most common gap auditors find on CA-2(2)?

Specialized assessments selected under CA-2(2), such as malicious user testing or insider threat assessment, were never performed

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · CA - Assessment, Authorization, and Monitoring

`CA-2(2)` Control Assessments | Specialized Assessments

Include as part of control assessments, organization-defined frequency, Selection: announced; unannounced, Selection (one or more): in-depth monitoring; security instrumentation; automated security test cases; vulnerability scanning; malicious user testing; insider threat assessment; performance and load testing; data leakage or data loss assessment; [organization-defined other forms of assessment].

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, CA-2(2). 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 control assessments · SIEM / log platform
Control assessment report · SIEM / log platform
Control assessment evidence · SIEM / log platform
Test of Mechanisms supporting control assessment · SIEM / log platform

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Assessment, authorization, and monitoring policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Control assessment plan · 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

Specialized assessments selected under CA-2(2), such as malicious user testing or insider threat assessment, were never performed
The frequency and the announced or unannounced selection for specialized assessments were not defined

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

CA-2(1) Control Assessments | Independent Assessors · CA-2(3) Control Assessments | Leveraging Results from External Organizations