# NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 AC-17(1) — Monitoring And Control - Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ac-17-1-monitoring-and-control - Section: [Compliance](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance) › [NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 Controls](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5) › AC — Access Control - Last updated: 2026-06-05 - Publisher: iCompaas, Inc. (https://www.icompaas.com) **NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5**·Control `AC-17(1)`·high·Component: **Access Control** ## What this control requires > Employs automated mechanisms to monitor and control remote access methods, detecting attacks and ensuring policy compliance through auditing connection activities on system components like servers and devices. This control supports the Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) System capability within the Access Control family. > > — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Control AC-17(1) ### In plain English Employs automated mechanisms to monitor and control remote access methods, detecting attacks and ensuring policy compliance through auditing connection activities on system components like servers and devices. In practice, this means you can prove you policy management-level controls on a defined cadence. ## Why it matters SP 800-53 is the catalogue every U.S. federal authorisation (FedRAMP, FISMA, CMMC) and most regulated industries point at. A missing control surfaces as a Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M) item that an Authorizing Official must approve before the Authority To Operate is granted or renewed. This control is rated **high**. Auditors expect a named owner, a remediation SLA, and a tooling artefact that evidences continuous operation. ## What an auditor looks for A 3PAO (FedRAMP) or Independent Assessor (NIST RMF) tests against NIST SP 800-53A assessment procedures. For each control they expect a documented implementation that addresses every assessment objective (Examine, Interview, Test) and an implementation summary in the System Security Plan. Within **Access Control**, the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Control AC-17(1)) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles. ## How to implement #### Endpoint Protection **MDM.** Make MDM enrollment a hard gate for device access (Intune compliance + Conditional Access, or Jamf + Okta device trust). Unmanaged devices simply don't get a session token. **EDR.** Deploy CrowdStrike / SentinelOne / Defender for Endpoint to every server and laptop; alert on any host that stops sending telemetry for >24h. #### Logging Monitoring **AWS.** Org-trail CloudTrail to a central log archive account, GuardDuty in every region, and Security Hub for cross-source correlation. **Azure.** Pipe every diagnostic setting into a central Log Analytics workspace; onboard Microsoft Sentinel for SIEM/SOAR. **GCP.** Aggregate audit logs in a dedicated logging project with sink to BigQuery; enable Security Command Center Premium and route findings to Chronicle SIEM. ### Operational checklist - **Policy.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Access.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Information.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Security.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Remote.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Scope:** management, access control, information, system, protection, monitor, compliance, components. ## Evidence to collect - **User Device Scan.** MDM compliance state per user device (Intune / Jamf / Workspace ONE). Endpoint compliance telemetry (Intune, Jamf) proves managed coverage. Focus: Monitoring And Control. ## Common pitfalls - Pilot MDM rollouts that quietly exclude executives or engineers; carving out the highest-risk users is the most common audit failure. - Per-account logging that nobody stitches together at the org level — incidents that cross accounts go undetected for days. ## How it maps to other frameworks Computed from shared tags, control component and key-operation subjects — handy when you are reconciling controls across an audit. - [**NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 3 3.13.1** — Boundary Protection](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-171-rev-3/3-13-1-boundary-protection) ## Related controls in NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 - [**Control SI-4(13)** — Analyze Traffic And Event Patterns](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-4-13-analyze-traffic-and-event-patterns) - [**Control PE-22** — Component Marking](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/pe-22-component-marking) - [**Control SI-4(23)** — Host-Based Devices](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-4-23-host-based-devices) - [**Control AC-7(2)** — Purge Or Wipe Mobile Device](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ac-7-2-purge-or-wipe-mobile-device) - [**Control AC-16** — Security And Privacy Attributes](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ac-16-security-and-privacy-attributes) - [**Control AC-20(2)** — Portable Storage Devices -- Restricted Use](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ac-20-2-portable-storage-devices-restricted-use) ## References - [NIST Computer Security Resource Center — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/risk-management/sp800-53-controls) - Catalogue identifier: `Control AC-17(1)` Topics: governance riskendpoint securitylogging monitoringendpoint protectioncontinuous monitoring ## Related compliance guidance - [NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5: a practical implementation guide for cloud teams](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5): Start with the full NIST SP 800-53 implementation guide — scope, roadmap, evidence and how the assessment runs. - [NIST SP 800-171 and CMMC: a practical guide to protecting CUI in the cloud](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-171-rev-3): If your obligation is protecting CUI in your own systems for a federal or defence contract, this derived subset — not the full catalogue — is the requirement. - [SOC 2 compliance: a practical implementation guide for cloud-native SaaS teams](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria): Most commercial SaaS already hold a SOC 2 Type 2, and FedRAMP 20x Class A is designed for providers that have one.