Search every question across sub-FAQs

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 does not create an unrestricted on-site audit right. It says customers should request documented evidence for provider claims. When individual audits are impractical or could increase security risk, the provider should make independent evidence available; a sufficiently transparent independent audit selected by the provider should normally meet the customer's review interest. If independent audit is impractical, the provider should disclose its self-assessment process and results.

Put the enforceable assurance route in the agreement before service approval. Define the report or certification, covered entities and services, locations, period, exclusions, customer controls, access to supporting material, treatment of exceptions, bridge evidence, remediation follow-up, confidentiality limits, cost, notice, and escalation when evidence is insufficient. If binding law, regulation, or an existing customer commitment requires access that the provider will not supply, negotiate a compliant route or do not approve that use; risk acceptance cannot remove the underlying duty.

Keep the signed assurance clause, current report or certificate, scope statement, auditor opinion, exceptions, provider response, bridge evidence, and the customer's assessment together. Record any request for extra material and the provider's response.

A report is usable only for the entities, services, regions, controls, subservice organizations, and period it covers. It does not test the customer's own configuration or prove compliance with requirements outside its scope.

Supplier management and the cloud service owner should agree the assurance route with security input. Legal counsel should approve negotiated access, confidentiality, liability, cost, and notice terms when those terms are material.

The risk owner decides whether restricted or missing assurance is acceptable. A provider-selected auditor's opinion informs that decision but does not replace the customer's approval.

Review the assurance route before renewal and when the provider entity, service, region, subservice organization, report scope, legal requirement, or material exception changes.

Reassess after a relevant incident or when a report or bridge letter expires. Document interim evidence and the risk decision if the next independent report is delayed.

Start with one named service, service tier, region, administrative interface, and provider chain. List customer consoles, provider support access, APIs, hypervisor or orchestration functions where exposed, emergency accounts, and automated identities. For each capability, record whether the customer, provider, or both can use it and whether it can view data, change security, create or delete resources, terminate service, or affect recovery.

For customer cloud administrators, clause 9.2.3 says the customer should use authentication techniques sufficient for the identified risks and the provider should supply suitable capabilities. Multi-factor authentication is the standard's example, not an unconditional rule for every administrative action. The customer should also ensure that access to cloud functions and data can be restricted under its access-control policy. Provider utilities capable of bypassing normal operating or security procedures should be limited to authorized personnel and reviewed and audited regularly.

Apply two additional branches. If the provider delegates an elevated action to the customer, clause 12.4.3 says the operation and its performance should be logged, and the customer should decide whether provider logging is adequate or add its own. If failure of a customer administrative operation could cause unrecoverable damage, CLD.12.1.5 says the customer should document the procedure and specify supervisor monitoring. Examples are installing, changing, or deleting virtual servers, networks, or storage; terminating cloud use; and backup or restoration.

Keep the administrative-interface inventory, role design, approval, identity-provider settings, authentication configuration, current entitlement export, provider-support terms, emergency-account record, privileged-operation logs, critical-operation procedure, supervisor record, and completed review. Provider evidence should cover the contracted service and provider access; customer evidence should show the customer's own grants and settings.

Sample a new grant, role change, leaver, emergency use, delegated privileged action, and destructive or recovery operation where each exists. Match every human identity to a person and every workload identity to a controlled process. Record approved duties, authentication, grant and expiry, last use, log event, supervisor where required, reviewer, exception, and removal or revalidation.

ISO/IEC 27017 allocates actions between customer and provider but does not assign the customer's internal job titles. As a practical governance model, the manager accountable for the service can approve customer administrator roles, the platform or identity owner can provision them, and someone independent of the access holder can review them where practical.

Supplier management and security should assess provider-administrator commitments and assurance for the contracted service. The authorized risk owner, not the access holder or provisioner, should decide whether an unresolved exception is acceptable.

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 does not set a fixed access-review interval. Set one from risk, applicable requirements, and the agreement, then review whenever a person's role or employment changes, a new administrative interface or identity type appears, provider support access changes, or an incident exposes misuse or weak monitoring.

Immediately review emergency access after use and revoke temporary privileges when the approved period ends. Record the decision, removal, unresolved exception, and next owner.

First identify the exact customer and provider legal entities, named service and tier, service model, permitted locations, provider chain, incorporated documents, and effective versions. Clause 6.1.1 says both parties' information-security roles should be stated in an agreement. The customer should confirm it can perform its allocation; the provider should document its allocation with customers, upstream cloud providers, and suppliers. The customer remains accountable for the decision to use the service, while the provider is accountable for the security it states in the agreement.

For each relevant process, name the provider action, customer action, handoff, evidence, and escalation route. Clause 15.1.2 lists malware protection, backup, cryptographic controls, vulnerability and incident management, technical compliance checking, security testing, auditing, evidence and logs, termination protection, authentication and access control, and identity and access management. Add monitoring, continuity, data and record protection, capacity, and jurisdiction terms where the service or other requirements make them relevant.

Make incident terms operational. The provider documentation should define which incidents it reports, the level of disclosure about detection and response, the target notification timeframe, the notification procedure, contacts, and any remedies. Both parties need mechanisms to report an event to the other and let the customer track status. Do not replace these fields with a generic promise to provide notice.

Define provider changes by category, planned date and time, technical description, and notice of start and completion where an adverse security effect is possible. Cover changes inherited from an upstream cloud provider. For exit, list customer assets, export format and method, schedule, access period, return or removal steps, and deletion of all copies from provider systems. CLD.8.1.5 calls for a documented, timely process but does not prescribe a universal deletion certificate or fixed number of days.

Keep the executed agreement and every incorporated service description, service-level agreement, security schedule, responsibility matrix, location term, supplier list, assurance report, change notice, incident contact, continuity commitment, and exit plan together. Record each document's version or effective date and which entity, service, tier, and region it covers.

Test the terms against operations. Sample a provider change notice, evidence request, incident exercise, restoration test, or exit rehearsal. Record the contractual promise, trigger, responsible parties, expected information and timing, observed result, exception, follow-up owner, and due date. A signed agreement alone does not show that either party can perform the handoff.

ISO/IEC 27017 does not assign internal approval titles. As a practical governance model, the cloud service owner can approve operational fit, security can review the control allocation and evidence route, supplier management can control the provider record, and legal counsel can review material contract terms.

Include privacy, resilience, records, and regulatory owners when their requirements apply. Only the authorized risk owner should accept a gap that remains after negotiation or additional controls.

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 sets no fixed contract-review period. Review before signing and renewal, and when the service model, provider entity, supplier chain, locations, architecture, security feature, assurance scope, incident process, or exit capability changes.

Do not assume online terms stayed fixed. Record the version or effective date reviewed, assess change notices, and update the responsibility matrix, risk treatment, configuration, and exit plan when the agreement changes.

Use a five-step decision. Define the customer's legal, contractual, policy, availability, confidentiality, integrity, and recovery requirements; identify the exact service, tier, region, and provider capabilities; allocate each task between customer and provider; treat every capability gap; then test and approve the resulting control set. ISO/IEC 27017:2015 says customers should consider gaps before selection, manage service use to meet their requirements, and add controls when preset provider controls do not adequately mitigate risk.

Apply the service-model branch to each layer instead of using the service label as the answer. In IaaS, provider event logging can stop at infrastructure components while the customer logs its virtual machines and applications; backup generally resides with the customer unless the provider supplies it. A PaaS customer may also need to back up customer data produced through development capabilities, including executable files. In SaaS, the provider may operate more technical layers, but the customer still controls its service decision, customer identities, available configuration, customer procedures, and assigned handoffs.

When the provider supplies backup, request specifications for scope and schedule, methods and formats, encryption where relevant, retention, integrity verification, restore procedures and timescales, testing, and storage location. Verify those specifications against the customer's requirements. If the provider does not supply the needed backup capability, the standard assigns implementation to the customer; buying the service does not create a backup by itself.

Document each customer control against the named service, risk or requirement, responsible actor, configuration or procedure, provider dependency, evidence source, exception, and review trigger. A provider certificate can support a provider claim within its scope, but it does not show that the customer enabled a setting, reviewed access, collected its application logs, tested restoration, or completed another customer-operated task.

Use the approved requirement and service assessment, responsibility matrix, configuration baseline or export, identity and access review, known-event logging test, backup specification and restore result, incident exercise, vulnerability record, change assessment, and exit test as applicable. Evidence should cover the same service, tier, region, architecture, and period as the decision.

For each sample, identify the account, resource, or handoff; expected setting or procedure; observed result; evidence time; reviewer; exception; follow-up owner; and due date. Provider documentation can describe a capability. Customer evidence should show whether the organization enabled, operated, reviewed, and corrected its side.

ISO/IEC 27017 assigns responsibilities to the customer and provider but does not prescribe the customer's internal job titles. As a practical model, the cloud service owner can own the customer-side control set, while platform, identity, security operations, application, backup, incident, and exit owners approve and operate the controls allocated to them.

Supplier management should maintain provider dependencies. Privacy, legal, resilience, or regulatory owners should review the controls that support their requirements, and the authorized risk owner should decide unresolved gaps.