What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 10.3.1 Audit log read access limited to job need?

Access control lists or role assignments for the SIEM and log storage; File permissions on local log directories of sampled systems; Documented justification for each role or user granted log read access; Periodic access review results for log platform users.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 10.3.1?

Broad groups such as all IT staff can read the SIEM

PCI DSS v4.0.1 · Req 10: Logging and Monitoring

`10.3.1` Audit log read access limited to job need

Read access to audit log files must be limited to people whose job requires it. Applies to all entities. The guidance adds that this covers log files on the originating systems and anywhere else they are kept, and recommends need-to-know access control plus physical or network segregation as good practice. Customized approach objective: unauthorized personnel cannot reach stored activity records.

Source: PCI DSS v4.0.1, 10.3.1. 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

Periodic access review results for log platform users · Identity provider / directory

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Access control lists or role assignments for the SIEM and log storage · Policy repository / GRC workspace
File permissions on local log directories of sampled systems · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Documented justification for each role or user granted log read access · 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

Broad groups such as all IT staff can read the SIEM
Local log files world-readable on Linux hosts
Access to log archive storage not included in access reviews

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

10.2.2 Required details recorded for each auditable event · 10.3.2 Audit log files protected from modification