Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consistency between 1.4 and 2.1 or added context #1

Open
planglois925 opened this issue Jul 2, 2019 · 2 comments
Open

Consistency between 1.4 and 2.1 or added context #1

planglois925 opened this issue Jul 2, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@planglois925
Copy link

Controls

Control 1.4: Maintain Detailed Asset Inventory
https://controls-assessment-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/control-1/control-1.4.html

Control 2.1: Maintain Inventory of Authorized Software
https://controls-assessment-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/control-2/control-2.1.html

Comment

Is there a documented logic as to why these controls while conceptually similar take different approaches towards defining Measures + Metrics?

@ginger-anderson
Copy link
Contributor

Hey PL!

The logic here was that 1.4 is more focused on tooling and ensuring the tooling is working/configured appropriately across relevant assets to help update the inventory. 2.1 is more generic since we do not know if enterprises will be using tooling or not, and we do not make a recommendation either way. Does this help? If not, we can discuss further.

v/r
Ginger

@ginger-anderson
Copy link
Contributor

PL,

Was this for Controls v7.1 or CAS 1.0? If so, closing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants