EvidenceSheet

SI-4 System Monitoring

a. Monitor the system to detect: 1. Attacks and indicators of potential attacks in accordance with the following monitoring objectives: organization-defined monitoring objectives; and 2. Unauthorized local, network, and remote connections; b. Identify unauthorized use of the system through the following techniques and methods: organization-defined techniques and methods; c. Invoke internal monitoring capabilities or deploy monitoring devices: 1. Strategically within the system to collect organization-determined essential information; and 2. At ad hoc locations within the system to track specific types of transactions of interest to the organization; d. Analyze detected events and anomalies; e. Adjust the level of system monitoring activity when there is a change in risk to organizational operations and assets, individuals, other organizations, or the Nation; f. Obtain legal opinion regarding system monitoring activities; and g. Provide organization-defined system monitoring information to organization-defined personnel or roles Selection (one or more): as needed; [organization-defined frequency].

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, SI-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.

10
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. 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

  • Test of Organizational processes for system monitoring; mechanisms supporting and/or implementing system monitoring capabilities · SIEM / log platform

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • System and information integrity policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • System and information integrity procedures · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Procedures addressing system monitoring tools and techniques · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Continuous monitoring strategy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Facility diagram/layout · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • System design documentation · Document repository
  • System monitoring tools and techniques documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Locations within the system where monitoring devices are deployed · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • System configuration settings and associated documentation · 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

SI-3(10) Malicious Code Protection | Malicious Code Analysis · SI-4(1) System Monitoring | System-wide Intrusion Detection System