CC4.2: Communicating deficiencies

When a control gap or weakness is found, it is reported to the people who can fix it and to leadership, tracked to closure, and not quietly dropped.

Category: Security (common criteria, required in every SOC 2 report) · Series: CC4 (Monitoring activities) · TSC 2017 (2022 points of focus)

That summary is Policyseed’s own paraphrase, written to be read next to the policy sections below. The authoritative wording is the AICPA’s Trust Services Criteria, which the CPA firm tests your controls against during the examination.

Policies that address CC4.2

The Policyseed crosswalk points CC4.2 at 3 policies. Each link opens the full sample text at the section an auditor would read. Section 4 holds the statements management commits to; section 5 holds the procedures that produce evidence.

• P01 Information Security Policy, section 5 (Procedures). Owner: Security Owner.
• P13 Incident Response Policy, section 5 (Procedures). Owner: Security Owner.
• P17 Risk Assessment and Management Policy, section 5 (Procedures). Owner: Security Owner.

Evidence examples for CC4.2

Artifacts a company of 5 to 200 people can realistically produce. The Audit Kit’s evidence checklist lists them per policy with an owner column so each one has a name against it before the examination.

• Remediation tracker (spreadsheet or issue board) with owner, due date and status for each open finding
• Incident post-mortem documents with action items and their completion dates
• Leadership update summarizing open security findings and their status

Related criteria in CC4 (Monitoring activities)

• CC4.1: Ongoing and separate evaluations

Previous: CC4.1 Ongoing and separate evaluations. Next: CC5.1 Selecting control activities. All 38 criteria are listed on the template index.

Policyseed provides governance policy templates and AI tailoring. It is not legal advice and not a compliance guarantee. Management adopts the policies; the CPA firm performs the SOC 2 examination.