FAQ item index

Search every question across sub-FAQs

Find the exact question, open the source answer card, and copy a direct link to the anchored sub-FAQ response.

Indexed coverage
32of32items
Across 8 modules • Updated May 9, 2026
Author
Sorena AI
Published
May 9, 2026
Updated
May 9, 2026
ISO/IEC 27017 Audit Rights

How should teams handle Audit Rights under ISO/IEC 27017?

Start with the operational decision: define what Audit Rights means in your ISO/IEC 27017 scope, who owns it, and what record proves the decision is current.

For ISO/IEC 27017, the useful record is practical: decision, scope, owner, evidence, exception, review trigger, and next action. This keeps the answer useful in audits, customer reviews, incidents, supplier reviews, and management review.

  • Name the accountable owner and reviewer for Audit Rights.
  • Record the scope, assumptions, decision, approval date, evidence location, exception status, and next review trigger.
  • Escalate when Audit Rights changes risk acceptance, service commitments, customer promises, regulatory duties, or certification evidence.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Audit Rights

What evidence should prove Audit Rights is current under ISO/IEC 27017?

The evidence should show the process operating. For this artifact, the strongest record usually includes shared-responsibility matrix, cloud service agreement, provider assurance, customer configuration evidence, access reviews, logs, and change records.

Avoid evidence that only repeats a requirement. A reviewer should be able to see the actual owner, date, system, supplier, AI system, service, incident, risk, or control sample behind the answer.

  • Use source records from the system of work, not screenshots created only for audit day.
  • Keep exceptions visible as risk acceptance, corrective action, or management-review input.
  • Update linked registers when the answer changes an owner, risk, control, service, supplier, or review date.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Audit Rights

Who should approve Audit Rights decisions under ISO/IEC 27017?

The person who can fund, operate, and correct the process should own the decision; governance should review consistency and exceptions.

For high-impact changes, approval should include the teams affected by the evidence: security, privacy, resilience, supplier management, AI governance, legal, risk, or business service owners as relevant.

  • Use a named owner, named backup, and named escalation forum.
  • Separate preparation work from risk acceptance and final approval.
  • Keep approval records with the evidence rather than in disconnected email threads.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Audit Rights

When should Audit Rights be reviewed under ISO/IEC 27017?

Review it at planned intervals and whenever the underlying scope, service, supplier, control, risk, AI system, personal data flow, incident process, or customer commitment changes.

A stale record is worse than a short record. If the facts change, update the evidence and mark what changed so the next reviewer can trust the page.

  • Set a planned review date and a change-trigger rule.
  • Use findings to update controls, procedures, contracts, risk registers, or training.
  • Carry unresolved items into management review or risk acceptance.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Cloud Admin Access

How should teams handle Cloud Admin Access under ISO/IEC 27017?

Treat Cloud Admin Access as privileged access to cloud services and manage it like any other high-risk administrative capability. In practice, define the administrator role, restrict it to named people or roles, require approval before access is granted, and keep a record of what the administrator is allowed to do.

For cloud security work, write the provider/customer split before requesting evidence; the same control can be provider-owned, customer-owned, or shared depending on the service model and contract. This keeps the answer useful in audits, customer reviews, incidents, supplier reviews, and management review.

  • Name the accountable owner and reviewer for Cloud Admin Access.
  • Record the scope, assumptions, decision, approval date, evidence location, exception status, and next review trigger.
  • Use least privilege and separation of duties so Cloud Admin Access is limited to what is needed for the admin task.
  • Review and revalidate the access when roles, services, suppliers, or risks change.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Cloud Admin Access

What evidence should prove Cloud Admin Access is current under ISO/IEC 27017?

The evidence should show the process operating. For this artifact, the strongest record usually includes a shared-responsibility matrix, cloud service agreement, provider assurance, customer configuration evidence, access reviews, logs, and change records.

Avoid evidence that only repeats a requirement. A reviewer should be able to see the actual owner, date, system, supplier, AI system, service, incident, risk, or control sample behind the answer.

  • Use source records from the system of work, not screenshots created only for audit day.
  • Keep exceptions visible as risk acceptance, corrective action, or management-review input.
  • Update linked registers when the answer changes an owner, risk, control, service, supplier, or review date.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Cloud Admin Access

Who should approve Cloud Admin Access decisions under ISO/IEC 27017?

The person who can fund, operate, and correct the process should own the decision; governance should review consistency and exceptions.

For high-impact changes, approval should include the teams affected by the evidence: security, privacy, resilience, supplier management, AI governance, legal, risk, or business service owners as relevant.

  • Use a named owner, named backup, and named escalation forum.
  • Separate preparation work from risk acceptance and final approval.
  • Keep approval records with the evidence rather than in disconnected email threads.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Cloud Admin Access

When should Cloud Admin Access be reviewed under ISO/IEC 27017?

Review it at planned intervals and whenever the underlying scope, service, supplier, control, risk, AI system, personal data flow, incident process, or customer commitment changes.

A stale record is worse than a short record. If the facts change, update the evidence and mark what changed so the next reviewer can trust the page.

  • Set a planned review date and a change-trigger rule.
  • Use findings to update controls, procedures, contracts, risk registers, or training.
  • Carry unresolved items into management review or risk acceptance.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Cloud Service Agreements

How should teams handle Cloud Service Agreements under ISO/IEC 27017?

Start with the operational decision: define what Cloud Service Agreements means in your ISO/IEC 27017 scope, who owns it, and what record proves the decision is current.

In practice, the agreement should spell out the cloud service scope, the shared-responsibility split, security and privacy obligations, incident notification and response duties, subcontractor or subprocessor controls, data-location or transfer commitments, logging and monitoring expectations, change and review rules, and exit or service-termination rights. For cloud services, the provider/customer split should be written before requesting evidence so the same control can be provider-owned, customer-owned, or shared depending on the service model and contract.

  • Name the accountable owner and reviewer for Cloud Service Agreements.
  • Record the scope, assumptions, decision, approval date, evidence location, exception status, and next review trigger.
  • Escalate when Cloud Service Agreements changes risk acceptance, service commitments, customer promises, regulatory duties, or certification evidence.
Citations
NIST SP 800-53A Revision 5

Shows that agreements can document characteristics, security requirements, privacy requirements, controls, responsibilities, and impact level.

ISO/IEC 27017 Cloud Service Agreements

What evidence should prove Cloud Service Agreements is current under ISO/IEC 27017?

The evidence should show the process operating. For this artifact, the strongest record usually includes shared-responsibility matrix, cloud service agreement, provider assurance, customer configuration evidence, access reviews, logs, and change records.

Avoid evidence that only repeats a requirement. A reviewer should be able to see the actual owner, date, system, supplier, AI system, service, incident, risk, or control sample behind the answer.

  • Use source records from the system of work, not screenshots created only for audit day.
  • Keep exceptions visible as risk acceptance, corrective action, or management-review input.
  • Update linked registers when the answer changes an owner, risk, control, service, supplier, or review date.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Cloud Service Agreements

Who should approve Cloud Service Agreements decisions under ISO/IEC 27017?

The person who can fund, operate, and correct the process should own the decision; governance should review consistency and exceptions.

For high-impact changes, approval should include the teams affected by the evidence: security, privacy, resilience, supplier management, AI governance, legal, risk, or business service owners as relevant.

  • Use a named owner, named backup, and named escalation forum.
  • Separate preparation work from risk acceptance and final approval.
  • Keep approval records with the evidence rather than in disconnected email threads.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Cloud Service Agreements

When should Cloud Service Agreements be reviewed under ISO/IEC 27017?

Review it at planned intervals and whenever the underlying scope, service, supplier, control, risk, AI system, personal data flow, incident process, or customer commitment changes.

A stale record is worse than a short record. If the facts change, update the evidence and mark what changed so the next reviewer can trust the page.

  • Set a planned review date and a change-trigger rule.
  • Use findings to update controls, procedures, contracts, risk registers, or training.
  • Carry unresolved items into management review or risk acceptance.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Customer Controls

How should teams handle Customer Controls under ISO/IEC 27017?

Start with the operational decision: define what Customer Controls means in your ISO/IEC 27017 scope, who owns it, and what record proves the decision is current.

For cloud security work, write the provider/customer split before requesting evidence; the same control can be provider-owned, customer-owned, or shared depending on the service model and contract. This keeps the answer useful in audits, customer reviews, incidents, supplier reviews, and management review.

  • Name the accountable owner and reviewer for Customer Controls.
  • Record the scope, assumptions, decision, approval date, evidence location, exception status, and next review trigger.
  • Escalate when Customer Controls changes risk acceptance, service commitments, customer promises, regulatory duties, or certification evidence.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Customer Controls

What evidence should prove Customer Controls is current under ISO/IEC 27017?

The evidence should show the process operating. For this artifact, the strongest record usually includes shared-responsibility matrix, cloud service agreement, provider assurance, customer configuration evidence, access reviews, logs, and change records.

Avoid evidence that only repeats a requirement. A reviewer should be able to see the actual owner, date, system, supplier, AI system, service, incident, risk, or control sample behind the answer.

  • Use source records from the system of work, not screenshots created only for audit day.
  • Keep exceptions visible as risk acceptance, corrective action, or management-review input.
  • Update linked registers when the answer changes an owner, risk, control, service, supplier, or review date.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Customer Controls

Who should approve Customer Controls decisions under ISO/IEC 27017?

The person who can fund, operate, and correct the process should own the decision; governance should review consistency and exceptions.

For high-impact changes, approval should include the teams affected by the evidence: security, privacy, resilience, supplier management, AI governance, legal, risk, or business service owners as relevant.

  • Use a named owner, named backup, and named escalation forum.
  • Separate preparation work from risk acceptance and final approval.
  • Keep approval records with the evidence rather than in disconnected email threads.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Customer Controls

When should Customer Controls be reviewed under ISO/IEC 27017?

Review it at planned intervals and whenever the underlying scope, service, supplier, control, risk, AI system, personal data flow, incident process, or customer commitment changes.

A stale record is worse than a short record. If the facts change, update the evidence and mark what changed so the next reviewer can trust the page.

  • Set a planned review date and a change-trigger rule.
  • Use findings to update controls, procedures, contracts, risk registers, or training.
  • Carry unresolved items into management review or risk acceptance.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Logging

How should teams handle Logging under ISO/IEC 27017?

Start with the operational decision: define what Logging means in your ISO/IEC 27017 scope, who owns it, and what record proves the decision is current.

For cloud security work, write the provider/customer split before requesting evidence; the same control can be provider-owned, customer-owned, or shared depending on the service model and contract. This keeps the answer useful in audits, customer reviews, incidents, supplier reviews, and management review.

  • Name the accountable owner and reviewer for Logging.
  • Record the scope, assumptions, decision, approval date, evidence location, exception status, and next review trigger.
  • Escalate when Logging changes risk acceptance, service commitments, customer promises, regulatory duties, or certification evidence.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Logging

What evidence should prove Logging is current under ISO/IEC 27017?

The evidence should show the process operating. For this artifact, the strongest record usually includes shared-responsibility matrix, cloud service agreement, provider assurance, customer configuration evidence, access reviews, logs, and change records.

Avoid evidence that only repeats a requirement. A reviewer should be able to see the actual owner, date, system, supplier, AI system, service, incident, risk, or control sample behind the answer.

  • Use source records from the system of work, not screenshots created only for audit day.
  • Keep exceptions visible as risk acceptance, corrective action, or management-review input.
  • Update linked registers when the answer changes an owner, risk, control, service, supplier, or review date.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Logging

Who should approve Logging decisions under ISO/IEC 27017?

The person who can fund, operate, and correct the process should own the decision; governance should review consistency and exceptions.

For high-impact changes, approval should include the teams affected by the evidence: security, privacy, resilience, supplier management, AI governance, legal, risk, or business service owners as relevant.

  • Use a named owner, named backup, and named escalation forum.
  • Separate preparation work from risk acceptance and final approval.
  • Keep approval records with the evidence rather than in disconnected email threads.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017 Logging

When should Logging be reviewed under ISO/IEC 27017?

Review it at planned intervals and whenever the underlying scope, service, supplier, control, risk, AI system, personal data flow, incident process, or customer commitment changes.

A stale record is worse than a short record. If the facts change, update the evidence and mark what changed so the next reviewer can trust the page.

  • Set a planned review date and a change-trigger rule.
  • Use findings to update controls, procedures, contracts, risk registers, or training.
  • Carry unresolved items into management review or risk acceptance.
Citations
Page 1 of 2
Previous12Next