CC7.2·high·Component: Common Criteria (Security)What this control requires
The entity monitors system components and the operation of those components for anomalies that are indicative of malicious acts, natural disasters, and errors affecting the entity's ability to meet its objectives; anomalies are analyzed to determine whether they represent security events.
In plain English
The entity monitors system components and the operation of those components for anomalies that are indicative of malicious acts, natural disasters, and errors affecting the entity's ability to meet its objectives; anomalies are analyzed to determine whether they represent security events. In practice, this means you can prove you risk objectives-level controls on a defined cadence.
Why it matters
Every SOC 2 audit opinion is built control-by-control from the Trust Services Criteria. A missing or failing criterion produces an exception in the report, which buyers, partners and procurement teams read line-by-line during vendor reviews.
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 SOC 2 auditor (under AT-C §§ 105/205) tests both design and operating effectiveness over the audit window. For each criterion they expect a written control, a control owner, a population of events, and a sample tested against the population — including remediation tickets for exceptions.
Within Common Criteria (Security), the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Criterion CC7.2) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles.
How to implement
Secure Development
Pipeline. Require code review, SAST (Semgrep / Snyk Code), SCA (Dependabot / Renovate), secret-scanning and IaC scanning in the merge pipeline.
Branch protection. Protected branches enforce reviews, signed commits and passing CI before merge; document the protection rules as the control evidence.
Code Review Testing
Pipeline. Require at least one human reviewer plus passing CI (lint, type, unit, security scan) before merge — protected branches enforce this.
Operational checklist
- Risk. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
- Malicious. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
- Anomaly. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
- Security. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
- Secure. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
- Scope: objectives, detection.
Evidence to collect
- Code Repo Scan. Source-control evidence — branch protection, required reviewers, CI status, SCA / SAST reports.
- Infra Scan. Continuous infrastructure-posture telemetry — AWS Config, Azure Policy compliance, GCP Organisation Policy, Wiz / Prisma findings.
Source control pipelines (GitHub, GitLab) enforce SDLC guardrails. Focus: Anomaly Detection (Original component: System Operations).
Common pitfalls
- CI security checks set to warn-only; the merge button is faster than the security feedback.
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.
- CIS Controls v8 14.6 — Train Workforce Members on Recognizing and Reporting Security Incidents
- GDPR Article 75 — Secretariat
- BSI C5:2020 OPS-03 — Capacity Management - Controlling of Resources
- ISO/IEC 27001:2022 A.8.31 — Separation of development, test and production environments
Related controls in SOC 2 (2017 TSC)
- Criterion CC1.3 — Organizational Structure and Reporting Lines
- Criterion CC1.4 — Competence and Training
- Criterion CC5.1 — Control Selection and Development
- Criterion CC1.1 — Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values
- Criterion CC1.2 — Board Independence and Oversight
- Criterion CC5.2 — Technology Control Activities to Support Objectives
References
- AICPA / ASEC — SOC 2 (2017 TSC)
- Catalogue identifier:
Criterion CC7.2
Topics: governance risksecure developmentcode review testingdevsecops