# NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CP-7(1) — Separation From Primary Site - Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/cp-7-1-separation-from-primary-site - 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) › CP — Contingency Planning - Last updated: 2026-06-05 - Publisher: iCompaas, Inc. (https://www.icompaas.com) **NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5**·Control `CP-7(1)`·high·Component: **Contingency Planning** ## What this control requires > Select an alternate processing site sufficiently separated from the primary to reduce shared threat vulnerabilities, based on risk assessments. This control supports the Separation capability within the Contingency Planning family. > > — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Control CP-7(1) ### In plain English Select an alternate processing site sufficiently separated from the primary to reduce shared threat vulnerabilities, based on risk assessments. 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 **Contingency Planning**, the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Control CP-7(1)) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles. ## How to implement #### Policy Management **Docs.** Keep each policy in version-controlled Markdown alongside the code that implements it; ship a signed PDF snapshot at each annual review and link the SHA into the SoA. #### Vulnerability Management **Scanners.** Pair an unauthenticated scanner (Nessus / Qualys / Tenable.io) for external surface with an authenticated agent for OS/library CVEs on every host. **SLA.** Document remediation SLAs by CVSS / EPSS: critical 7 days, high 30 days, medium 90 days; report monthly trend to leadership. **Containers.** Scan images in CI (Trivy / Grype / Snyk Container) AND at runtime; block deploys on critical findings without exception. ### Operational checklist - **Policy.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Separation.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Control.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Alternate.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Contingency.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Scope:** management, threat, assessments, primary site, capability, policy, vulnerability, separation. ## Evidence to collect - **Policy Document.** A signed and version-controlled policy / standard / procedure document. Signed policy or standard documents the safeguard. Focus: Separation From Primary Site. ## Common pitfalls - Policies that no engineer has read; the version in Confluence drifts from the version that's actually being enforced. - Scans that hit only the perimeter; missing authenticated scans of OS, runtime libs and base images so most CVEs are invisible. ## 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. - [**ISO/IEC 27001:2022 A.5.7** — Threat intelligence](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-27001-2022/a-5-7-threat-intelligence) - [**CIS Controls v8 7.1** — Establish and Maintain a Vulnerability Management Process](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/cis-controls-v8/7-1-establish-and-maintain-a-vulnerability-management-process) - [**BSI C5:2020 OIS-05** — Contact with Relevant Government Agencies and Interest Groups](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/bsi-c5-2020/ois-05-contact-with-relevant-government-agencies-and-interest-groups) ## Related controls in NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 - [**Control CP-7(6)** — Inability To Return To Primary Site](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/cp-7-6-inability-to-return-to-primary-site) - [**Control CP-8(3)** — Separation Of Primary And Alternate Providers](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/cp-8-3-separation-of-primary-and-alternate-providers) - [**Control CP-2(6)** — Alternate Processing And Storage Sites](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/cp-2-6-alternate-processing-and-storage-sites) - [**Control CA-7(3)** — Trend Analyses](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ca-7-3-trend-analyses) - [**Control CP-7** — Alternate Processing Site](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/cp-7-alternate-processing-site) - [**Control SA-15(8)** — Reuse Of Threat And Vulnerability Information](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-15-8-reuse-of-threat-and-vulnerability-information) ## 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 CP-7(1)` Topics: governance riskpolicy managementthreat intelligencevulnerability management ## 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.