DE.AE-02 Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities
Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities. Control from NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 framework, domain: DE - Detect.
Source: NIST CSF 2.0, DE.AE-02. 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 CSF 2.0 in the compliance library.
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
- Analyst case notes documenting activity reconstruction · Document repository
governing documentDocuments that govern the control
- SIEM correlation rule library with detection logic versioning · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Adverse event triage runbook with severity scoring criteria · Document repository
- Threat hunting reports tied to correlated events · Document repository
- MITRE ATT&CK technique mapping for detected behaviors · Document repository
First move
Common gaps auditors find
- Correlation rules tuned only for known IOC patterns, missing behavioral chains
- No documented hypothesis when escalating events to incidents
- Analyst notes stored in chat threads rather than the case system
- ATT&CK mapping inconsistent across analysts
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