This requirement exists to ensure using findings and root-cause trends to improve controls, governance, and assurance activities is consistently governed, documented, and capable of producing reliable assurance. Without it, audit activities may be inconsistent, difficult to evidence, or insufficient to support management, regulatory, and stakeholder decisions.
Document the required using findings and root-cause trends to improve controls, governance, and assurance activities; assign accountable roles and approval points; define minimum records and evidence; apply the approved audit methodology and risk criteria; and retain evidence of execution and review. Periodically review the process for changes in organizational risk, regulatory expectations, and audit scope.
| FRAMEWORK CODE | FRAMEWORK NAME & DETAILS | FAMILY / CATEGORY | VERSION | ACTION |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISO27001 | ISO/IEC 27001 ISO/IEC 27001 specifies auditable requirements for... Clause: 10.1 – Continual improvement |
ISO
Standard
|
v2022 | View → |
| RBI-CSF | RBI Cyber Security Framework / Master Directions RBI cyber-security requirements and directions set... Clause: Circular §13 – Cyber security preparedness indicators; 18) Vulnerability assessment and Penetration Test and Red Team Exercises – 18.4 Management monitoring of VA/PT findings and follow-up actions |
India
Regulation
|
vLatest | View → |
| SEBI-CSCRF | SEBI Cyber Security & Cyber Resilience Framework SEBI’s Cybersecurity and Cyber Resilience Framewor... Clause: 4.4 Cyber Audit |
India
Regulation
|
vLatest | View → |
| DORA | Digital Operational Resilience Act The EU Digital Operational Resilience Act establis... Clause: Article 6(6) – Regular internal audit of ICT risk management framework Article 9(1) – Continuous monitoring/control of ICT security and functioning |
EU
Regulation
|
vCurrent | View → |
| NIS2 | NIS2 Directive The NIS2 Directive establishes EU-wide cybersecuri... Clause: Article 21(2)(f) – Policies and procedures to assess the effectiveness of cybersecurity risk-management measures |
EU
Directive
|
vCurrent | View → |
| COBIT2019 | COBIT COBIT is an enterprise governance and management f... Clause: 4.5 – Monitor, Evaluate and Assess (MEA) > MEA02 – Managed System of Internal Control > MEA02.01 – Monitor internal controls. 4.5 – Monitor, Evaluate and Assess (MEA) > MEA04 – Managed Assurance > MEA04.08 – Report and follow up on the assurance initiative. |
COBIT
Governance Framework
|
v2019 | View → |
| ISO22301 | ISO/IEC 22301 ISO 22301 specifies requirements for a Business Co... Clause: 9.2.1 – General; 9.2.2 – Audit programme(s) |
ISO
Standard
|
v2019 | View → |
| NIST-CSF | NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) The NIST Cybersecurity Framework provides high-lev... Clause: ID.IM – Improvement | ID.IM-01 – Improvements are identified from evaluations |
NIST
Framework
|
v2 | View → |
| NIST80053 | NIST SP 800-53 NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 presents control families, i... Clause: 3.13 – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, 3.4 – ASSESSMENT, AUTHORIZATION, AND MONITORING; PM-6 – MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE, CA-7 – CONTINUOUS MONITORING |
NIST
Control Catalog
|
vRev. 5 | View → |
| SOC2 | SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria SOC 2 is an independent examination and reporting... Clause: CC4.1 – Monitoring of Controls – COSO Principle 16: The entity selects, develops, and performs ongoing and/or separate evaluations to ascertain whether the components of internal control are present and functioning. CC4.2 – Monitoring of Controls – COSO Principle 17: The entity evaluates and communicates internal control deficiencies in a timely manner to those parties responsible for taking corrective action, including senior management and the board of directors, as appropriate. |
AICPA
Audit Framework
|
vLatest | View → |