What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 1.1.2 Requirement 1 roles and responsibilities assigned?

RACI or responsibility assignment matrix covering Requirement 1 activities such as ruleset review and change approval; Job descriptions for network and security engineering roles referencing NSC duties; Signed acknowledgements from staff accepting their assigned network security responsibilities; Interview records with the people named for six-monthly NSC reviews and diagram upkeep.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 1.1.2?

Responsibilities are listed against a team mailbox rather than accountable individuals

PCI DSS v4.0.1 · Req 1: Network Security Controls

`1.1.2` Requirement 1 roles and responsibilities assigned

The duties needed to carry out the Requirement 1 activities (network security control design, configuration, change handling, reviews and diagram maintenance) must be written down, allocated to named roles or people, and understood by those who hold them. Applicability: no special notes; applies to every assessed entity. Customized approach objective: daily responsibility for all Requirement 1 work is allocated, and the people holding it are answerable for these controls operating successfully and without interruption.

Source: PCI DSS v4.0.1, 1.1.2. 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 PCI DSS v4.0.1 in the compliance library.

Version 4.0.1 is the active version; 4.0 has been retired. Appendix A1 applies only to multi-tenant service providers, A2 only to card-present POS POI terminals that still use SSL or early TLS, and A3 only when a payment brand or acquirer requires it. Which requirements apply to you follows your validation type.

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

Signed acknowledgements from staff accepting their assigned network security responsibilities · HR system / LMS
Interview records with the people named for six-monthly NSC reviews and diagram upkeep · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

RACI or responsibility assignment matrix covering Requirement 1 activities such as ruleset review and change approval · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Job descriptions for network and security engineering roles referencing NSC duties · 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

Responsibilities are listed against a team mailbox rather than accountable individuals
RACI still names staff who have left or changed roles
Outsourced firewall management provider duties are not reflected in the internal responsibility matrix

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

1.1.1 Requirement 1 policies and procedures governed · 1.2.1 Ruleset configuration standards for NSCs