FedRAMP High
RA - Risk Assessment

FedRAMP High RA-3: Risk Assessment

Conduct risk assessment annually (FedRAMP); document; review and update.

Maintained by Gerard BlokdykVerified against the published standard Control text last updated

What else in your programme already covers this

This control maps to 87 controls across 36 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.

  • NIST-CSF-DE.AE-04 The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood
  • NIST-CSF-GV.OV-01 Cybersecurity risk management strategy outcomes are reviewed to inform and adjust strategy and direction
  • NIST-CSF-GV.OV-03 Organizational cybersecurity risk management performance is evaluated and reviewed for adjustments needed
  • NIST-CSF-GV.RM-02 Risk appetite and risk tolerance statements are established, communicated, and maintained
  • NIST-CSF-GV.RM-03 Cybersecurity risk management activities and outcomes are included in enterprise risk management processes
  • NIST-CSF-GV.RM-06 A standardized method for calculating, documenting, categorizing, and prioritizing cybersecurity risks is established and communicated
  • NIST-CSF-GV.SC-03 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management is integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management, risk assessment, and improvement processes
  • NIST-CSF-ID.RA-03 Internal and external threats to the organization are identified and recorded
  • NIST-CSF-ID.RA-04 Potential impacts and likelihoods of threats exploiting vulnerabilities are identified and recorded
  • NIST-CSF-ID.RA-05 Threats, vulnerabilities, likelihoods, and impacts are used to understand inherent risk and inform risk response prioritization
  • NIST-CSF-ID.RA-06 Risk responses are chosen, prioritized, planned, tracked, and communicated
  • NIST-CSF-ID.RA-09 The authenticity and integrity of hardware and software are assessed prior to acquisition and use

PCI DSS 4.0 · 7 controls

  • 10.4.2.1 10.4.2.1 Periodic log review frequency set by targeted risk analysis
  • 12.3.2 12.3.2 Targeted risk analysis for each customized-approach requirement
  • 12.5.3 12.5.3 Scope review after significant organisational change
  • 2.2.5 2.2.5 Insecure services, protocols or daemons secured
  • 5.2.3.1 5.2.3.1 Targeted risk analysis sets evaluation frequency
  • 5.3.2.1 5.3.2.1 Targeted risk analysis sets malware scan frequency
  • 5.2.3 5.2.3 Periodic evaluation of components not at risk from malware
  • CPS230-11 Identification, Assessment and Management of Operational Risk
  • CPS230-9 Management of the Full Range of Operational Risks
  • CPS230-P26 Assessment of Business and Strategic Decisions on the Risk Profile
  • CPS230-P27 Comprehensive Assessment of the Operational Risk Profile
  • CPS230-P28 Risk Assessment Before Providing a Material Service to Another Party

SOC 2 · 5 controls

  • SOC2-CC3.1 CC3.1 Objectives specified clearly enough to assess risk (COSO principle 6)
  • SOC2-CC3.2 CC3.2 Identifying and analysing risks to objectives (COSO principle 7)
  • SOC2-CC3.4 CC3.4 Identifying and assessing significant changes (COSO principle 9)
  • SOC2-CC4.1 CC4.1 Ongoing and separate evaluations of control (COSO principle 16)
  • SOC2-CC9.1 CC9.1 Mitigating risks of business disruption

ISO 22301:2019 · 4 controls

  • 6.1 Actions to address risks and opportunities
  • 6.1.1 Determining risks and opportunities
  • 6.1.2 Addressing risks and opportunities
  • 8.2.3 Risk assessment

ISO 27701:2019 · 4 controls

  • 5.2.1 Understanding the organization and its context
  • 5.4.1 Actions to address risks and opportunities
  • 5.6.2 Information security risk assessment
  • 7.2.5 Privacy impact assessment
  • CFTC-SS-1 Program of Risk Analysis and Oversight
  • CFTC-SS-17 Enterprise Technology Risk Assessment
  • CFTC-SS-2 Enterprise Risk Management and Governance Category

HIPAA Security Rule · 3 controls

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · 3 controls

  • CBPR-PR-28 Safeguards proportional to risk
  • CBPR-PR-34 Risk assessments and third party certifications
  • SEC01-BP04 Stay up to date with security threats and recommendations
  • SEC01-BP07 Identify threats and prioritize mitigations using a threat model
  • AUCDR-IS-STEP1 Step 1 - Define and implement security governance for CDR data
  • AUCDR-IS-STEP3 Step 3 - Have and maintain an information security capability

ISO 27001:2022 · 2 controls

  • 5.35 Independent review of information security
  • 5.7 Threat intelligence

ISO 27002:2022 · 2 controls

  • 5.35 Independent review of information security
  • 5.7 Threat intelligence

ISO/IEC 23894:2023 · 2 controls

  • ISO23894-6.3 AI Risk Assessment
  • 6.4 Risk assessment

ISO/IEC 42001:2023 · 2 controls

  • 6.1.2 AI risk assessment
  • 8.2 AI risk assessment

NIS2 Directive · 2 controls

  • Art.21.1 Take proportionate all-hazards measures calibrated to the entity's own risk exposure
  • Art.21.2.a Policies on risk analysis and on information system security

NIST SP 800-66 Rev 2 · 2 controls

  • CPS220-04 Maintenance of a Risk Management Framework

APRA CPS 234 · 1 control

  • CPS234-21 Implementation of Information Security Controls

C5 (Germany) · 1 control

  • C5-OIS-07 Application of the Risk Management Policy

CMMC 2.0 · 1 control

DORA · 1 control

GDPR · 1 control

ISO 31000:2018 · 1 control

  • 6.4 Risk assessment

NIST SP 800-172 · 1 control

  • 3.11.1e Threat-Aware Risk Assessment

NIST SP 800-218 · 1 control

  • RA-3 RA-3 Risk Assessment
  • RA-3 RA-3 Risk Assessment
  • RA-3 RA-3 Risk Assessment

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.

Other controls in RA - Risk Assessment

You are reading one control. How much of FedRAMP High have you already done?

FedRAMP High RA-3 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of FedRAMP High your existing evidence covers. Hold C5 (Germany) and 119 of 410 FedRAMP High 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. 6 were rejected on the C5 (Germany) pair alone.

Query this from an agent

The graph holds this control, the 87 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.