Information technology security assessment
Information technology security assessment is a planned evaluation of security controls to determine whether they are implemented correctly, operating as intended, and where weaknesses exist.[1]
Lead
[edit]Information technology security assessment is a planned evaluation of security controls to determine whether they are implemented correctly, operating as intended, and where weaknesses exist.[1]
Common practice organizes the work into three methods: examination of documents and configurations, interviews with personnel, and testing under defined conditions.[1]
Assessment results support judgments about control effectiveness, validate and prioritize technical findings, and plan fixes with later verification or retest.[1]
Security assessment is distinct from a risk assessment—which expresses risk in terms of likelihood and impact—and from an audit.[2]
Scope and terminology
[edit]Security assessment refers to a planned evaluation of security controls to check whether they are implemented correctly, operating as intended, and where weaknesses exist.[1]
Common practice organizes assessment work into three methods: examination of documents and configurations, interviews with personnel, and testing under defined conditions.[1]
A risk assessment is treated separately: risk is commonly expressed in terms of likelihood and impact, and the process identifies, estimates, and prioritizes risks for decisions .[2][3]
An audit is also distinct: it is a systematic and independent evaluation of conformance in a management-system context; organizations may apply audits within an ISMS while using assessments to examine technical control effectiveness.[4][5]
Methodology
[edit]Planning
[edit]- Planning typically defines scope and objectives, sets rules of engagement, confirms legal and ethical constraints, and prepares accounts and environments.[1]
- Good practice also records authorization, data-handling limits, and communications before testing begins.[6]
- When software development is in scope, activities can align with secure development practices so findings map to the lifecycle.[7]
Execution
[edit]- Execution combines examination, interviewing, and testing to gather evidence about control effectiveness.[1]
- For web and application targets, typical coverage includes input validation, authentication and session management, and configuration.[8]
- Public risk taxonomies such as the OWASP Top 10 provide a shared vocabulary for common weaknesses without naming vendors or tools.[9]
- API-focused assessments often reference the API Security Top 10 to address issues specific to service interfaces.[10]
Verification mindset
[edit]- Many teams verify implementations against requirement sets and assurance levels rather than following a tool-specific procedure.[11]
- In regulated or contractual contexts, criteria may come from a control baseline or catalogue (for example, protecting controlled unclassified information).[12][13]
Transition to reporting
[edit]- Assessment plans and evidence records support reproducibility by tracing each finding to the method used.[14]
- Results normally include prioritized remediation and a plan for later verification or retest.[1]
Reporting
[edit]A typical assessment report states the scope and objectives, explains the methods used, and presents evidence-backed findings; where appropriate it also notes potential impact and likelihood, recommends fixes with priorities, and defines a plan for verification or retest.[1]
To support reproducibility, assessment plans and evidence records allow reviewers to trace each finding to the technique and assessment objects that produced it.[14]
Findings are often mapped to a recognized control catalogue or practice guide so owners know exactly what to change—for example, NIST SP 800-53 or ISO/IEC 27002.[12][13]
Risk and measurement
[edit]In practice, many organizations communicate results with qualitative or semi-quantitative scoring; this aligns with general risk-management guidance and information-security usage.[15][2]
Quantitative analysis is also possible when a model and data are defined; Open FAIR is one widely cited approach for expressing frequency and loss.[16]
ISO/IEC 27005 connects these ideas to information-security risk management and helps keep terminology consistent within an ISMS context.[3]
Tools (types rather than vendors)
[edit]Articles typically describe tool types—for example, vulnerability scanners, software-composition analysis, dynamic/interactive application testing, configuration checking, and evidence/issue tracking—rather than specific products.[8][17]
Using a control/practice lens keeps the description neutral and durable because results can be mapped to established catalogues such as ISO/IEC 27002 and NIST SP 800-53.[13][12]
Relation to RMF / Continuous monitoring
[edit]Assessments sit within the NIST Risk Management Framework alongside control selection, implementation, authorization, and continuous monitoring; they are not a one-time event.[18]
Continuous monitoring uses assessment activities and other data over time, feeding results back into risk and control decisions at the organization, mission, and system levels.[19][20]
In many programs this work is coordinated through an ISMS, which provides requirements and governance for recurring assessments and audits.[5]
References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment (SP 800-115) — Report (Report). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2008-09-30. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
- ^ a b c Joint Task Force Transformation Initiative (2012-09-17). Guide for Conducting Risk Assessments (Report). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
- ^ a b "ISO/IEC 27005:2022". ISO. ISO/IEC. Retrieved 2025-10-30.
- ^ "ISO 19011:2018". ISO. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
- ^ a b "ISO/IEC 27001:2022". ISO. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
- ^ "NIS2 Technical Implementation Guidance | ENISA". www.enisa.europa.eu. European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). 2025-09-16. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
- ^ Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF) Version 1.1: Recommendations for Mitigating the Risk of Software Vulnerabilities (Report). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
- ^ a b "OWASP Web Security Testing Guide | OWASP Foundation". owasp.org. OWASP Foundation. Retrieved 2025-10-27.
- ^ "Introduction - OWASP Top 10:2025 RC1". owasp.org. OWASP Foundation. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
- ^ "OWASP API Security Top 10". owasp.org. OWASP Foundation. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
- ^ "OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS) | OWASP Foundation". owasp.org. OWASP Foundation. Retrieved 2025-10-27.
- ^ a b c Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations (Report). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 2020-12-10. doi:10.6028/NIST.SP.800-53r5.
- ^ a b c "ISO/IEC 27002:2022". ISO. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
- ^ a b Joint Task Force (2022-01-25). Assessing Security and Privacy Controls in Information Systems and Organizations (Report). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). doi:10.6028/NIST.SP.800-53Ar5. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
- ^ "ISO 31000:2018". ISO. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
- ^ "The Open FAIR™ Body of Knowledge | www.opengroup.org". www.opengroup.org. Retrieved 2025-10-27.
- ^ "CIS Controls Version 8". CIS. Center for Internet Security (CIS). Retrieved 2025-10-27.
- ^ Force, Joint Task (2018-12-20). Risk Management Framework for Information Systems and Organizations: A System Life Cycle Approach for Security and Privacy (Report). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Retrieved 2025-11-30.
- ^ Information Security Continuous Monitoring (ISCM) for Federal Information Systems and Organizations (Report). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 2011-09-30. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
- ^ Managing Information Security Risk: Organization, Mission, and Information System View (Report). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2011-03-01. Retrieved 2025-11-30.