Side-by-sideGlobalISO/IEC 27017

ISO/IEC 27017 CSP vs CSC Role Split

Use the service model and agreement to assign each cloud security responsibility to the provider, the customer, or both.

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 is guidance, not a universal responsibility matrix. Apply it with the service's architecture, risk assessment, contract, and applicable legal or regulatory duties.

Author
Sorena AI
Published
May 9, 2026
Updated
Jul 24, 2026
Sections
5

Structured answer sets in this page tree.

Primary sources
3

Cited legal and guidance references.

Publication metadata
Sorena AI
Published May 9, 2026
Updated Jul 24, 2026
Overview

A (CSP) delivers the cloud service; a (CSC) uses it. ISO/IEC 27017 gives separate guidance where their activities differ and common guidance where it is the same. The actual split still depends on the service model and agreement.

Side-by-side comparison

CSP vs CSC Role Split: scope, duties, evidence, and decision rule

Compare what the provider operates, what the customer configures or governs, and where one side depends on the other.

Review all sources
First framework
CSP

The operates the service capabilities within its documented boundary and should explain the security information and customer actions needed to use them.

Second framework
CSC

The chooses and configures the service, governs its users, data, and workloads, and remains accountable for the decision to use it.

Comparison row 1

Scope and covered activity

CSP

The provider's scope is the cloud service and the infrastructure, platform, application, facilities, personnel, and support processes it operates for that service.

CSC

The customer's scope is its use of the service: selected features, identities, configurations, workloads, data, integrations, endpoints, and customer-run processes.

Operational implication

Name the purchased service and technical layer. The boundary changes between IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS and can also change by feature or service tier.

Comparison row 2

Who acts

CSP

Provider owners commonly include the service owner, platform or infrastructure operations, security operations, supplier management, incident response, and customer support.

CSC

Customer owners commonly include the service owner, security and cloud engineering, identity administrators, data owners, application teams, supplier management, and the risk owner.

Operational implication

Assign a named owner to each action. A shared control needs at least one provider action and one customer action, not a single 'shared' label.

Comparison row 3

Trigger or threshold

CSP

Provider action is triggered by service design and operation, provider changes, incidents, vulnerabilities, capacity or resilience events, supplier changes, and commitments made to customers.

CSC

Customer action starts at selection and onboarding and continues through configuration changes, access changes, new workloads or data, incidents, assurance review, renewal, and exit.

Operational implication

Record scheduled reviews and event triggers. A change on either side can invalidate the previous allocation.

Comparison row 4

Core obligations

CSP

The provider should agree and document role allocation, secure its service boundary, disclose relevant capabilities and constraints, support customer requirements, and operate the controls assigned to it.

CSC

The customer should define cloud security requirements, assess service gaps, confirm it can perform its assigned role, configure and monitor its part of the service, and add controls where needed.

Operational implication

Write actions as testable statements. For example: provider supplies infrastructure logs; customer enables and retains workload logs.

Comparison row 5

Evidence and records

CSP

Useful provider evidence includes the service description, agreement, responsibility schedule, change notices, backup and logging specifications, incident process, assurance reports, and provider test results.

CSC

Useful customer evidence includes the approved architecture, configuration baseline, identity and access review, workload logs, key records, restore tests, vulnerability tickets, and risk decisions.

Operational implication

Link each matrix row to current evidence on both sides. Provider evidence cannot prove a customer action, and customer evidence cannot prove an opaque provider control.

Comparison row 6

Timing and cadence

CSP

Provider timing follows service releases, maintenance, assurance periods, incident procedures, vulnerability handling, supplier reviews, and contractual notice periods.

CSC

Customer timing follows onboarding, configuration and access reviews, workload changes, risk reviews, contract milestones, incident exercises, and exit.

Operational implication

Track each side's period and due date. An annual provider report does not set the customer's access-review or restore-test cadence.

Comparison row 7

Assurance and accountability

CSP

The provider can support assurance with service documentation, contractual commitments, independent reports or certificates, customer responses, and evidence permitted by the agreement.

CSC

The customer should assess whether provider evidence is sufficient and separately evidence its own controls through operational records, internal audit, risk review, or other applicable assurance.

Operational implication

ISO/IEC 27017 is guidance rather than a law or a standalone certification scheme. State the separate contract, certification scope, or legal requirement that makes a control consequential.

Comparison row 8

Overlap and reuse

CSP

Provider reports, certificates, service descriptions, logs, and test results can support provider-operated portions of several customer controls.

CSC

The customer can reuse provider evidence only for the covered entity, service, region, period, and control. It still needs evidence for every complementary customer action.

Operational implication

Record the exact claim each artifact supports, its limits and exceptions, and the customer evidence that completes the control.

Comparison row 9

Practical decision rule

CSP

Assign an action to the provider when only the provider can operate or evidence the relevant service layer.

CSC

Assign an action to the customer when it depends on the customer's choice, configuration, identity, workload, data, endpoint, or internal process.

Operational implication

Mark a control shared when the outcome depends on both actions. Then describe the dependency and test the end-to-end result.

Practical decision rule

What is the practical assignment rule?

  • Assign the task to the party that can operate the relevant layer, but keep accountability and legal duties with the actor to whom they apply.
  • For a shared control, document both actions, the handoff, the evidence, and the failure condition.
  • If the provider's preset capability cannot meet the customer's requirement, add a customer control, negotiate a service or contract change, choose another service, or record an authorized risk decision.
Section 1

How does ISO/IEC 27017 split provider and customer responsibilities?

ISO/IEC 27017 does not assign every control to one fixed party. It gives separate provider and customer guidance where their work differs, common guidance where it does not, and says the parties should agree and document an appropriate allocation of information security roles and responsibilities. The remains accountable for deciding to use the service.

The provider should describe the security capabilities, limits, support, and customer actions built into the service. The customer should compare those capabilities with its requirements, confirm that it can perform its allocated duties, and add customer-side controls when preset provider features leave an unacceptable risk. Service model changes the technical split: an IaaS customer commonly manages guest operating systems, applications, and their logs, while a SaaS customer more often manages identities, tenant settings, data use, and integrations.

Map every link in a cloud supply chain. A SaaS company built on an IaaS platform is the upstream provider's customer and its own customers' provider. Its responsibility record should connect both agreements rather than treating the upstream platform as outside scope.

  • Define the service, service model, regions, data, workloads, provider chain, and administrative boundary before assigning controls.
  • For each control, record the provider action, customer action, shared dependency, named owner, agreement clause, and evidence.
  • Resolve gaps before onboarding. A provider capability is not enough if the customer's configuration, staffing, or legal duties require more.
Section 2

What should the responsibility record contain?

Use a responsibility matrix as an index, not as proof by itself. Each row should identify the service component, control outcome, provider and customer actions, dependency between them, owner, contract reference, evidence location, exception, and review trigger.

Evidence differs by side. Provider evidence can include service descriptions, change notices, backup specifications, independent assurance reports, incident procedures, and platform logs. Customer evidence can include approved configurations, identity and access reviews, workload logs, encryption-key records, restore tests, vulnerability remediation, and risk decisions.

  • Agreement evidence: responsibility schedule, service-level terms, support path, notification duties, data return or deletion terms, and exit assistance.
  • Provider evidence: scope and period of an assurance report, control exceptions, subservice organizations, service documentation, and change or incident notices.
  • Customer evidence: configuration baseline, access approval, privileged-operation log, backup or restore result, vulnerability ticket, and acceptance of residual risk.
  • Review evidence: changed boundary, affected matrix rows, decision owner, corrective action, and completion date.
Section 3

How should teams assign a shared cloud control?

Start with the control outcome, then identify which technical layer each party can operate. Check the provider's service documentation and agreement, compare them with the customer's requirements, and record any customer control needed to close the gap.

Test the complete chain. For logging in IaaS, for example, the provider may log infrastructure events while the customer logs its virtual machines and applications. The control fails if either side assumes the other records an event that neither collects.

  • Define the outcome and scope: service, component, data, tenant, region, and lifecycle stage.
  • Assign actions by technical control: provider-operated, customer-operated, or shared through a provider capability and customer configuration.
  • Verify dependencies with a test or current record, such as a restore test, log query, access review, incident exercise, or deletion confirmation.
  • Escalate any unowned action, unavailable evidence, or contractual gap to the risk owner before relying on the service.
Section 4

Where do responsibility matrices fail?

A matrix fails when it labels a control 'shared' without stating the two actions and their dependency. It also fails when it copies a generic IaaS, PaaS, or SaaS diagram without checking the purchased tier, optional features, upstream providers, and customer configuration.

Keep legal and contractual duties separate from ISO guidance. A provider's ISO claim does not transfer the customer's statutory obligations, expand the certified scope, or prove that a customer-side configuration operates correctly.

  • Do not treat 'provider managed' as proof; identify the provider artifact and its service, entity, region, and time coverage.
  • Do not assign an outcome twice or leave a dependent action unassigned.
  • Do not assume a provider backup feature meets the customer's retention and restore requirements; compare the specifications and test the customer outcome.
  • Do not reuse an old matrix after a service, architecture, contract, provider chain, or risk changes.
Section 5

When should the role split be reviewed?

Review the allocation before contracting and after changes to the service model, purchased features, architecture, data, regions, upstream providers, assurance coverage, or agreement. Incidents, failed tests, and provider control exceptions should also trigger a targeted review.

Update the responsibility matrix and the operational records that depend on it. A revised matrix does not fix a gap until the affected contract, configuration, procedure, monitoring rule, or owner assignment changes.

  • Set both a scheduled review date and event-based triggers.
  • Recheck provider evidence for the correct entity, service, region, period, exceptions, and customer actions.
  • Track each gap to remediation, an approved risk decision, or a decision not to use the service.
Primary sources

References and citations

iso.org
Referenced sections
  • Primary ISO listing for the current ISO/IEC 27001 ISMS requirements standard.
"Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection — Information security management systems — Requirements"
iso.org
Referenced sections
  • Primary ISO listing for the ISO/IEC 27002 information security control guidance standard.
"Information security controls"
iso.org
Referenced sections
  • Official ISO scope for cloud-specific controls and implementation guidance for both cloud service providers and cloud service customers.
"This Recommendation | International Standard provides controls and implementation guidance for both cloud service providers and cloud service customers."
Related guides

Explore more topics

ISO/IEC 27017 Audit Rights FAQ
ISO/IEC 27017 does not grant unrestricted cloud-provider audits. Define the contract route for independent assurance, supporting access, exceptions, and escalation.
ISO/IEC 27017 Certification Reality Guide
ISO/IEC 27017 is cloud control guidance, not a standalone management-system certification standard. Learn how to check the actual ISO/IEC 27001 claim and scope.
ISO/IEC 27017 Cloud Admin Access FAQ
Apply ISO/IEC 27017 to customer and provider cloud administrators: strong authentication, limited privileges, logged operations, supervised critical work, and review evidence.
ISO/IEC 27017 Cloud Provider Checklist Template and Workflow
ISO/IEC 27017 cloud provider checklist covering service scope, shared responsibilities, agreements, tenant isolation, operations, evidence, and secure exit.
ISO/IEC 27017 Cloud Security FAQ
Answers to ISO/IEC 27017:2015 cloud-security questions on shared roles, agreements, administration, logging, assurance, virtualization, and customer controls.
ISO/IEC 27017 Cloud Service Agreements FAQ
Use ISO/IEC 27017 to define cloud security roles, provider measures, evidence, incident handling, supplier dependencies, and exit terms in the service agreement.
ISO/IEC 27017 Compliance Guide
How cloud providers and customers apply ISO/IEC 27017:2015 through scoped risks, allocated responsibilities, agreements, controls, evidence, and review.
ISO/IEC 27017 Control Mapping to ISO/IEC 27001 Guide
Map ISO/IEC 27017:2015 cloud guidance and CLD controls into an ISO/IEC 27001:2022 ISMS with edition-aware rationale, owners, evidence, and SoA treatment.
ISO/IEC 27017 Customer Controls FAQ
Identify the cloud controls the customer should assess, configure, operate, monitor, evidence, and review when provider controls do not meet every security requirement.
ISO/IEC 27017 Hyperscaler Evidence Pack
What an ISO/IEC 27017:2015 hyperscaler evidence pack should contain, how to test coverage, and where provider assurance must be joined to customer evidence.
ISO/IEC 27017 Hyperscaler Evidence Pack Workflow
A service-specific workflow for testing hyperscaler claims, collecting provider and customer evidence, resolving gaps, and approving cloud risk under ISO/IEC 27017:2015.
ISO/IEC 27017 Logging FAQ
Allocate cloud event logging and monitoring between provider and customer, verify accessible events, privileged operations, timestamps, retention, alerts, and evidence.
ISO/IEC 27017 Provider Evidence FAQ
Check whether a cloud provider's certificate, audit report, or self-assessment supports its claims for the entity, service, location, controls, and period in scope.
ISO/IEC 27017 Shared Responsibility FAQ
Allocate ISO/IEC 27017 cloud-security roles to named provider, customer, and upstream parties for one service, then document, communicate, implement, and review the split.
ISO/IEC 27017 Shared Responsibility Model Guide
How to allocate provider, customer, and shared cloud security activities under ISO/IEC 27017:2015, document hand-offs, and test the allocation against evidence.
ISO/IEC 27017 Virtualization Responsibilities FAQ
Allocate tenant isolation, virtual-machine hardening, administrative operations, images, snapshots, and virtual-network policy under ISO/IEC 27017.
ISO/IEC 27017 vs CSA CCM Comparison
Compare ISO/IEC 27017:2015 with CSA CCM v4.1 by scope, control structure, responsibility mapping, assurance use, and evidence.
ISO/IEC 27017 vs ISO/IEC 27018 Comparison
Compare ISO/IEC 27017:2015 cloud security guidance with ISO/IEC 27018:2025 public-cloud PII processor guidance by scope, role, controls, and evidence.
ISO/IEC 27017 vs SOC 2 Comparison
Compare ISO/IEC 27017 cloud control guidance with SOC 2 attestation reports by purpose, scope, criteria, period, evidence, and customer responsibilities.