The audit assesses how the cybersecurity programme protects personal information from unauthorised access, alteration, destruction, use or release, and from loss of availability, covering the written programme and each applicable component: authentication (including phishing-resistant MFA), encryption, access and privileged account management, data, hardware and software inventories, secure configuration and patching, vulnerability scanning and penetration testing, log management, network monitoring and data loss prevention, anti-malware, segmentation, port and protocol control, awareness, training, secure development, oversight of service providers and third parties, retention and disposal, incident response and business continuity. The report describes the system, criteria and evidence, the effectiveness of controls, gaps with a dated remediation plan, prior-report corrections, responsible individuals, the auditor's signed independence statement, and any breach notifications made. An audit done for another purpose, such as against NIST CSF 2.0, may be used if it meets the article, alone or supplemented.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
CCPA/CPRA CCR 7123 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of CCPA/CPRA your existing evidence covers. Hold GDPR and 17 of 89 CCPA/CPRA controls already carry evidence.
Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 0 were rejected on the GDPR pair alone.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.