What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on RS.CO-03 Information is shared with designated internal and external stakeholders?

Information sharing agreements with partners; Sharing playbook with content controls; Records of intelligence shared with ISAC and peers; Internal sharing logs across business units; Sharing effectiveness review records.

What is the most common gap auditors find on RS.CO-03?

Sharing agreements signed but unused

NIST CSF 2.0 · RS - Respond

`RS.CO-03` Information is shared with designated internal and external stakeholders

Information is shared with designated internal and external stakeholders. Control from NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 framework, domain: RS - Respond.

Source: NIST CSF 2.0, RS.CO-03. 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

Document repository

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

Internal sharing logs across business units · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Records of intelligence shared with ISAC and peers · Document repository
Sharing effectiveness review records · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Information sharing agreements with partners · Vendor register / contract repository
Sharing playbook with content controls · Document repository

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

Sharing agreements signed but unused
Sharing one way (consume only)
Internal sharing fragmented across teams
Effectiveness reviewed only after incidents

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

RS.CO-02 Internal and external stakeholders are notified of incidents · RS.MA-01 The incident response plan is executed in coordination with relevant third parties once an incident is…