PL-8 Security and privacy architectures
Requires security and privacy architectures that set out how confidentiality, integrity and availability will be protected, how personal information processing will be handled to reduce privacy risk to individuals, how t
4
artefacts
0
held by a system
1
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
system holds itEvidence a system already holds
none for this control
periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review
- Review and update records at the defined frequency · Document repository
governing documentDocuments that govern the control
- Security and privacy architecture documents covering each required element · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Documented assumptions about and dependencies on external systems and services · Document repository
- Evidence the architecture informs acquisition decisions and the security plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace
First move
This control is evidenced by people and documents, not systems. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date. Do not try to automate it.
Common gaps auditors find
- Architecture describes security but treats privacy as an afterthought
- External dependencies undocumented, so inherited risk is invisible
- Architecture diverges from what was built and is never reconciled
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 sheetPL-7 Concept of Operations. Develop a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for the system describing how the organization intends to operate the system from the perspective of information security and privacy; and Review and update the · PL-9 Central Management. Centrally manage [organization-defined]