What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on PR.DS-02 The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-transit are protected?

TLS configuration standards and scan results; VPN and zero trust network access policy; Email transport encryption configuration; API security policy with mutual authentication; Network traffic encryption audit.

What is the most common gap auditors find on PR.DS-02?

Weak ciphers still permitted for legacy clients

NIST CSF 2.0 · PR - Protect

`PR.DS-02` The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-transit are protected

The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-transit are protected. Control from NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 framework, domain: PR - Protect.

Source: NIST CSF 2.0, PR.DS-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.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

moderate

to go live

Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

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

TLS configuration standards and scan results · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Email transport encryption configuration · Cloud console / configuration management

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Network traffic encryption audit · Cloud console / configuration management

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

VPN and zero trust network access policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
API security policy with mutual authentication · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 2 of 5 artefacts that already live in a system (Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Weak ciphers still permitted for legacy clients
Internal traffic unencrypted
API mutual authentication absent
Email encryption opportunistic only

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

PR.DS-01 The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-at-rest are protected · PR.DS-10 The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-use are protected