EvidenceSheet

11.5.2 Change detection on critical files

The entity needs a deployed change-detection tool (file integrity monitoring is one example) that: warns personnel when critical files are modified without authorization, whether by change, addition or deletion; and compares critical files at least once a week. Applicability: critical files are usually those that rarely change but whose alteration could signal a compromise or its risk. Such tools typically ship with critical files for the operating system preconfigured, while other critical files, such as those of custom applications, must be assessed and defined by the entity (the merchant or service provider). Guidance (good practice) gives examples of files to monitor: system executables, application executables, configuration or parameter files, audit logs held centrally or archived, and other files the entity judges critical. Objective under the customized approach: unauthorized personnel cannot alter critical files without an alert being raised.

Source: PCI DSS v4.0.1, 11.5.2. 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.

4
artefacts
1
held by a system
0
at each review
moderate
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

  • Sample FIM alerts and their investigation or change-ticket reconciliation · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • FIM policy listing monitored critical files per platform, including custom application files · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • FIM scan schedule showing comparisons at least weekly · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Evidence archived audit logs are within FIM scope · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 1 of 4 artefacts that already live in a system (SIEM / log platform); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

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

11.5.1.1 Service providers detect covert malware channels · 11.6.1 Payment page tamper detection