EvidenceSheet
SOC 2 (2017 Trust Services Criteria) · CC - Common Criteria (Security)

CC6.3 Role-based access, least privilege and segregation of duties

Rights over data, programs, functions and other protected assets is granted, changed or removed according to roles, responsibilities or system design and changes, applying least privilege and segregation of duties. Points of focus: access is created or modified on the asset owner's authorisation; it is removed when no longer needed; access structures (role-based, for example) limit privileges and separate incompatible functions; and roles and access rules are reviewed periodically for people who no longer need them (staff, contractors, vendors, partner personnel) and for system or service accounts that should not exist, and adjusted.

Source: SOC 2 (2017 Trust Services Criteria), CC6.3. 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 SOC 2 (2017 Trust Services Criteria) in the compliance library.

These are criteria, not controls: you design controls that meet them, and which criteria are in scope follows the categories your report covers (Security always; Availability, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity and Privacy only if chosen). A Type 2 report tests that the controls operated across the period, so the evidence asked for is samples across that period, not one copy.

5
artefacts
2
held by a system
2
at each review
moderate
to go live
Identity provider / directory
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

  • Change-of-role tickets showing old access removed · Identity provider / directory
  • Segregation of duties rules, for example developers cannot deploy to production unaided · Identity provider / directory

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Privileged access list and review evidence · Identity provider / directory
  • Role review results covering vendor and service accounts · Identity provider / directory

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Role definitions and role-to-permission matrix · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 2 of 5 artefacts that already live in a system (Identity provider / directory); 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

CC6.2 Registering and authorising users before issuing credentials · CC6.4 Restricting physical access to facilities and assets