EvidenceSheet

PM-1 Information Security Program Plan

a. Develop and disseminate an organization-wide information security program plan that: 1. Provides an overview of the requirements for the security program and a description of the security program management controls and common controls in place or planned for meeting those requirements; 2. Includes the identification and assignment of roles, responsibilities, management commitment, coordination among organizational entities, and compliance; 3. Reflects the coordination among organizational entities responsible for information security; and 4. Is approved by a senior official with responsibility and accountability for the risk being incurred to organizational operations (including mission, functions, image, and reputation), organizational assets, individuals, other organizations, and the Nation; b. Review and update the organization-wide information security program plan organization-defined frequency and following organization-defined events; and c. Protect the information security program plan from unauthorized disclosure and modification.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, PM-1. 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.

7
artefacts
0
held by a system
2
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

  • Records of program plan reviews and updates · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Test of Organizational processes for information security program plan development, review, update, and approval; mechanisms supporting and/or implementing the information security program plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Information security program plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Procedures addressing program plan development and implementation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Procedures addressing program plan reviews and updates · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Procedures addressing coordination of the program plan with relevant entities · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Procedures for program plan approvals · 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

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

PL-11 Baseline Tailoring · PM-2 Information Security Program Leadership Role