What is the most common gap auditors find on GV.RM-05?

Same report sent to every audience

`GV.RM-05` Lines of communication across the organization are established for cybersecurity risks, including risks from…

Q: What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on GV.RM-05 Lines of communication across the organization are established for cybersecurity risks, including risks from…?

Communication plan for cyber risk across stakeholder tiers; Reporting templates tailored by audience; Escalation pathway from analyst to board; Feedback loop records on report usefulness; Sample board report with decision asks.

Lines of communication across the organization are established for cybersecurity risks, including risks from suppliers and other third parties

Source: NIST CSF 2.0, GV.RM-05. 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.

artefacts

held by a system

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

Feedback loop records on report usefulness · Document repository
Sample board report with decision asks · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Communication plan for cyber risk across stakeholder tiers · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Reporting templates tailored by audience · Document repository
Escalation pathway from analyst to board · 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

Same report sent to every audience
Escalation only triggered by incidents
Feedback never incorporated
Reports lack a decision request

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

GV.RM-04 Strategic direction that describes appropriate risk response options is established and communicated · GV.RM-06 A standardized method for calculating, documenting, categorizing, and prioritizing cybersecurity risks is…