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.
5
artefacts
0
held by a system
0
at each review
hard
to go live
Document repository
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
none for this control
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
- Analyst case notes documenting activity reconstruction · Document repository
- Threat hunting reports tied to correlated events · Document repository
- MITRE ATT&CK technique mapping for detected behaviors · Document repository
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
- 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