What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on PR.PS-04 Log records are generated and made available for continuous monitoring?

Logging policy by data class and system tier; Centralized log collection architecture; Log retention configuration evidence; Log integrity protections and audit findings; Periodic logging coverage review.

What is the most common gap auditors find on PR.PS-04?

Critical systems missing from log feed

NIST CSF 2.0 · PR - Protect

`PR.PS-04` Log records are generated and made available for continuous monitoring

Log records are generated and made available for continuous monitoring. Control from NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 framework, domain: PR - Protect.

Source: NIST CSF 2.0, PR.PS-04. 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

SIEM / log platform

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

Log retention configuration evidence · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Log integrity protections and audit findings · SIEM / log platform
Periodic logging coverage review · SIEM / log platform

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Logging policy by data class and system tier · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Centralized log collection architecture · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 1 system-held artefact from your SIEM / log platform on a schedule; put the documents under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Critical systems missing from log feed
Retention shorter than incident windows
Log integrity not validated
Coverage review skipped

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.PS-03 Hardware is maintained, replaced, and removed commensurate with risk · PR.PS-05 Installation and execution of unauthorized software are prevented