# NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-4(24) — Indicators Of Compromise

- Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-4-24-indicators-of-compromise
- 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) › SI — System and Information Integrity
- Last updated: 2026-06-05
- Publisher: iCompaas, Inc. (https://www.icompaas.com)

**NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5**·Control `SI-4(24)`·high·Component: **System and Information Integrity**

## What this control requires

> Discover, collect, and distribute indicators of compromise (IOCs) to defined personnel. These IOCs, identified at the host or network level, provide forensic data on potential intrusions, enabling faster identification and response to security breaches. This control supports the Incident Response System capability within the System and Information Integrity family.
> 
> — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Control SI-4(24)

### In plain English

Discover, collect, and distribute indicators of compromise (IOCs) to defined personnel. In practice, this means you can prove you information 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 **System and Information Integrity**, the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Control SI-4(24)) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles.

## How to implement

#### Incident Response

**Runbook.** Maintain a runbook keyed by incident type with named roles (IC, comms, scribe), an out-of-band comms channel, and a 72-hour timeline for external notification.

**Tabletop.** Run a quarterly tabletop exercise (ransomware, insider, supply-chain) and feed gaps back into the runbook.

#### Network Security

**AWS.** VPC Flow Logs to S3, default-deny security groups, AWS Network Firewall for north-south, and Transit Gateway for hub-and-spoke segmentation.

**Azure.** NSGs with deny-by-default, Azure Firewall Premium with TLS inspection, Private Endpoints for PaaS, and Microsoft Defender for Cloud's secure score for drift.

**GCP.** VPC Service Controls perimeters around sensitive APIs, Cloud NGFW Enterprise for L7 inspection, Private Service Connect for managed services.

### Operational checklist

-   **Information.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Security.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Data.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Network.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Response.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Scope:** management, information, system, personnel, capability, identification, integrity, response.

## Evidence to collect

-   **Ticketing Workflow.** `ticketing_workflow` evidence

Workflow metrics (ServiceNow, Jira) show approvals and remediation. Focus: Indicators Of Compromise.

## Common pitfalls

-   Runbooks that name a role but no person, or list a paging channel that no longer exists.
-   Default-allow egress rules; East-West traffic with no segmentation; jump hosts on the public internet with password auth.

## 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.5.27** — Learning from information security incidents](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-27001-2022/a-5-27-learning-from-information-security-incidents)
-   [**NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 3 3.6.2** — Incident Monitoring, Reporting, and Response Assistance](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-171-rev-3/3-6-2-incident-monitoring-reporting-and-response-assistance)
-   [**SOC 2 (2017 TSC) CC7.4** — Incident Response](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria/cc7-4-incident-response)

## Related controls in NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5

-   [**Control SI-4(7)** — Automated Response To Suspicious Events](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-4-7-automated-response-to-suspicious-events)
-   [**Control SI-7(7)** — Integration Of Detection And Response](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-7-7-integration-of-detection-and-response)
-   [**Control SI-20** — Tainting](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-20-tainting)
-   [**Control SA-15(10)** — Incident Response Plan](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-15-10-incident-response-plan)
-   [**Control IR-2(1)** — Simulated Events](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ir-2-1-simulated-events)
-   [**Control IR-9(2)** — Training](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ir-9-2-training)

## 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 SI-4(24)`

Topics: incident responsechange managementnetwork security

## 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.