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
Back to sub-FAQs
ISO/IEC 27017 Provider Evidence

How should teams handle Provider Evidence under ISO/IEC 27017?

Start with the operational decision: define what Provider Evidence 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 Provider Evidence.
  • Record the scope, assumptions, decision, approval date, evidence location, exception status, and next review trigger.
  • Escalate when Provider Evidence changes risk acceptance, service commitments, customer promises, regulatory duties, or certification evidence.
Citations
Jump to answerOpen module
ISO/IEC 27017 Provider Evidence

What evidence should prove Provider Evidence 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
Jump to answerOpen module
ISO/IEC 27017 Provider Evidence

Who should approve Provider Evidence 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
Jump to answerOpen module
ISO/IEC 27017 Provider Evidence

When should Provider Evidence 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
Jump to answerOpen module
ISO/IEC 27017 Shared Responsibility

How should teams handle Shared Responsibility under ISO/IEC 27017?

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

In practice, this means documenting the split between the cloud provider and the customer before asking for evidence. NIST CSF 2.0 says cybersecurity roles and responsibilities for suppliers, customers, and partners should be established, communicated, and coordinated internally and externally, so the answer should show which party owns platform, service, configuration, access, monitoring, or incident duties.

  • Name the accountable owner and reviewer for Shared Responsibility.
  • Record the scope, assumptions, decision, approval date, evidence location, exception status, and next review trigger.
  • Show a simple split, such as provider-owned service controls and customer-owned configuration, access, and local process controls, then link that split to the supporting agreement or matrix.
  • Escalate when Shared Responsibility changes risk acceptance, service commitments, customer promises, regulatory duties, or certification evidence.
Citations
Jump to answerOpen module
ISO/IEC 27017 Shared Responsibility

What evidence should prove Shared Responsibility 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
Jump to answerOpen module
ISO/IEC 27017 Shared Responsibility

Who should approve Shared Responsibility 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
Jump to answerOpen module
ISO/IEC 27017 Shared Responsibility

When should Shared Responsibility 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
Jump to answerOpen module
ISO/IEC 27017 Virtualization Responsibilities

How should teams handle Virtualization Responsibilities under ISO/IEC 27017?

Start with the operational decision: define what Virtualization Responsibilities 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 Virtualization Responsibilities.
  • Record the scope, assumptions, decision, approval date, evidence location, exception status, and next review trigger.
  • Escalate when Virtualization Responsibilities changes risk acceptance, service commitments, customer promises, regulatory duties, or certification evidence.
Citations
ISO/IEC 27017:2015 standard page

Primary ISO listing for cloud-service security control guidance, including the cloud-specific control context used for virtualization responsibility splits.

ISO/IEC 27002:2022 standard page

Primary ISO listing for baseline information-security controls that ISO/IEC 27017 extends for cloud virtualization and shared-control evidence.

Jump to answerOpen module
ISO/IEC 27017 Virtualization Responsibilities

What evidence should prove Virtualization Responsibilities 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 27002:2022 standard page

Primary ISO listing for baseline information-security controls that ISO/IEC 27017 extends for cloud virtualization and shared-control evidence.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 standard page

Primary ISO listing for ISMS requirements that frame ownership, evidence, risk treatment, and review of virtualization responsibilities.

Jump to answerOpen module
ISO/IEC 27017 Virtualization Responsibilities

Who should approve Virtualization Responsibilities 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 27017:2015 standard page

Primary ISO listing for cloud-service security control guidance, including the cloud-specific control context used for virtualization responsibility splits.

ISO/IEC 27002:2022 standard page

Primary ISO listing for baseline information-security controls that ISO/IEC 27017 extends for cloud virtualization and shared-control evidence.

Jump to answerOpen module
ISO/IEC 27017 Virtualization Responsibilities

When should Virtualization Responsibilities 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 27017:2015 standard page

Primary ISO listing for cloud-service security control guidance, including the cloud-specific control context used for virtualization responsibility splits.

ISO/IEC 27002:2022 standard page

Primary ISO listing for baseline information-security controls that ISO/IEC 27017 extends for cloud virtualization and shared-control evidence.

Jump to answerOpen module
Page 2 of 2
Previous12Next