What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on CM-8(8) System Component Inventory | Automated Location Tracking?

Configuration management policy; Procedures addressing system component inventory; Configuration management plan; System design documentation; System component inventory; System configuration settings and associated documentation.

What is the most common gap auditors find on CM-8(8)?

System components cannot be tracked by geographic location

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · CM - Configuration Management

`CM-8(8)` System Component Inventory | Automated Location Tracking

Support the tracking of system components by geographic location using organization-defined automated mechanisms.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, CM-8(8). 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 · Cloud console / configuration management
Test of Organizational processes for managing the system component inventory; automated mechanisms supporting and/or implementing system component inventory; automated mechanisms supporting and/or implementing tracking of components by geographic locations · Cloud console / configuration management

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Configuration management policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing system component inventory · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Configuration management plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System design documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System component inventory · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System configuration settings and associated documentation · 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

System components cannot be tracked by geographic location
The automated mechanisms for location tracking were never defined or cover only some asset types

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

CM-8(7) System Component Inventory | Centralized Repository · CM-8(9) System Component Inventory | Assignment of Components to Systems