Skip to content

v1.16

Choose a tag to compare

@ausyinn ausyinn released this 30 Oct 11:30
· 1 commit to main since this release

The same 89 controls and 387 checks, with changes to 8 checks and 3 controls.

  • Written evidence: where a check's pass criteria already accept a written
    document as a passing route, the check's coverage now accepts that document
    too (the document lane in framework/test_attributes.json). This applies
    to a documented capacity expansion procedure with trigger criteria and
    expansion steps (AVL-01 A3), an acceptable use policy that governs removable
    media (END-02 A3), a document listing the vendors whose controls the product
    depends on, with their control areas (VND-02 A1), a vendor inventory
    document with a risk tier for each vendor (VND-01 A1), a documented
    request-based correction process (PRI-05 A3), a documented and maintained
    list of external access points (NET-02 A3), a document describing how
    personal information is kept accurate and complete, including validation at
    collection and how data subjects update their information (PRI-09 A1), and a
    document accessible to customers that lists their responsibilities, such as
    a contract clause (COM-01 A3). Every kind of evidence each check accepted
    before is still accepted, and the pass and fail criteria are unchanged.
  • Seven coverage questions now ask what their check's pass criteria ask
    (AVL-01 A3, END-02 A3, NET-02 A3, PRI-05 A3, PRI-09 A1 twice and COM-01 A3):
    four named only the system configuration, and three had been cut off
    mid-phrase. PRI-05 A3's now also asks whether corrections reach third
    parties that were given the data.
  • Collection guidance in framework/controls.json: AVL-01's names the
    documented capacity expansion procedure where capacity is expanded by hand,
    END-02's names the acceptable use policy where no device management enforces
    it, and PRI-09's names the request-based correction process beside the
    self-service path. PRI-09's description of what good looks like now names a
    documented periodic review process, with dated records once reviews have run
    and, for a company under a year old, its first review scheduled.