What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 2.2.3 Primary functions with different security levels managed?

System inventory recording the primary function(s) of each component and its security level; Configuration standard stating the chosen approach for co-located functions; Virtualization or container isolation settings (separate VMs, namespaces, dedicated memory) for mixed-function hosts; Architecture diagrams showing web tier separated from application and database tiers.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 2.2.3?

Database server also runs a public-facing web service with no isolation

PCI DSS v4.0.1 · Req 2: Secure Configurations

`2.2.3` Primary functions with different security levels managed

Where primary functions need different security levels, the entity must manage them in one of three ways: (a) a system component hosts only one primary function; OR (b) co-located primary functions whose security levels differ are isolated from one another; OR (c) co-located primary functions whose security levels differ are all secured to the level demanded by the function with the greatest security need. Applicability: no special notes; applies to every assessed entity. Customized approach objective: a less sensitive primary function cannot weaken the protection of a more sensitive one sharing the same system component.

Source: PCI DSS v4.0.1, 2.2.3. 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

moderate

to go live

Cloud console / configuration management

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

Virtualization or container isolation settings (separate VMs, namespaces, dedicated memory) for mixed-function hosts · Cloud console / configuration management

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

System inventory recording the primary function(s) of each component and its security level · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Configuration standard stating the chosen approach for co-located functions · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Architecture diagrams showing web tier separated from application and database tiers · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

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

Common gaps auditors find

Database server also runs a public-facing web service with no isolation
Containers of different security levels share a host without namespace or network isolation
Hypervisor hosts mix CDE and non-CDE VMs without documenting how isolation is maintained

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

2.2.2 Vendor default accounts managed · 2.2.4 Only necessary functionality enabled