What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 10.7.1 Service providers detect critical control failures (superseded)?

Documented process for detecting and handling critical control failures across the eight listed systems; Health monitoring and heartbeat alert configuration for each control system; Sample alerts raised for a control failure; Interview notes with monitoring staff on failure alerting.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 10.7.1?

FIM or anti-malware agents stop reporting without any alert

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

`10.7.1` Service providers detect critical control failures (superseded)

Service providers only (an additional requirement). When a critical security control system fails, the failure must be detected, alerted and addressed promptly, covering at least failures of: IDS/IPS; network security controls; anti-malware solutions; FIM; logical access controls; physical access controls; any segmentation controls in use; and audit logging mechanisms. Applicability: relevant only where the assessed entity is a service provider. This remains a numbered requirement in v4.0.1; Requirement 10.7.2 supersedes it after 31 March 2025. Objective under the customized approach: any failure of a critical security control system is spotted and dealt with promptly.

Source: PCI DSS v4.0.1, 10.7.1. 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

easy

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

Health monitoring and heartbeat alert configuration for each control system · SIEM / log platform
Sample alerts raised for a control failure · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Interview notes with monitoring staff on failure alerting · SIEM / log platform

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Documented process for detecting and handling critical control failures across the eight listed systems · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Automate the pull from your SIEM / log platform. Retention and alert rules exported from the SIEM; review evidence is the closed-alert record with reviewer and time.

Common gaps auditors find

FIM or anti-malware agents stop reporting without any alert
Segmentation control failures not monitored
Process documented only for firewalls and IDS

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

10.6.3 Time sync configuration and time data protected · 10.7.2 Detect and alert on critical security control failures