5.2.1 An anti-malware solution(s) is deployed on all system components, except for those system components identified in periodic evaluations per Requirement 5.2.3 that concludes the system components are not at risk from malware
An anti-malware solution(s) is deployed on all system components, except for those system components identified in periodic evaluations per Requirement 5.2.3 that concludes the system components are not at risk from malw.
2
artefacts
0
held by a system
0
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
system holds itEvidence a system already holds
none for this control
periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review
none for this control
governing documentDocuments that govern the control
- Approved PIMS scope statement · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Stakeholder map showing data subjects, regulators, and third parties · Vendor register / contract repository
First move
This control is evidenced by people and documents, not systems. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date. Do not try to automate it.
Common gaps auditors find
- No documented identification of internal and external privacy-relevant issues
- PII processing roles (controller/processor) not formally determined
- Jurisdictional privacy obligations not catalogued against operating context
- No periodic review of context changes affecting the PIMS
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 sheet5.1.2 Roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 5 are documented, assigned, and understood · 5.2.2 The deployed anti-malware solution(s): • Detects all known types of malware. • Removes, blocks, or contains all known types of malware