Security event log review export
The shortest fixed clock in the held texts is 24 hours (daily), set by PCI DSS 10.4.1. Paste one job that feeds this consumer, for example siem_log_review_export, weekly, and the register reads its period against the clocks below, names the gap in hours, and carries the question for its owner.
Matched on the job name or the consumer column by these words: siem, log review, security log, soc review, security event, soc export, soc weekly, SIEM export, SOC review.
The clock each rule sets
| Regime | Clock | Clause |
|---|---|---|
| PCI DSS | 24h | PCI DSS 10.4.1 Daily log review for critical systemssecurity events reviewed at least daily |
| no clock | PCI DSS 10.4.1.1 Automated mechanisms for log reviewautomated mechanisms | |
| ISO 27001 | no clock | ISO 27001 8.15 Logging |
| no clock | ISO 27001 8.16 Monitoring activities | |
| SP 800-53 | no clock | SP 800-53 AU-6 Audit record review, analysis, and reportinga defined frequency |
| HIPAA | no clock | HIPAA 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D) Information System Activity Review (Required) |
| DORA | no clock | DORA Art. 10 Detectionpromptly |
| NIS2 | no clock | NIS2 Art.21.2.b Incident handling |
Questions this page answers
How often does PCI DSS v4.0 require security event log review export?
Daily (24 hours): PCI DSS 10.4.1, Daily log review for critical systems. The held text of PCI DSS 10.4.1.1 (Automated mechanisms for log review) sets no fixed period: automated mechanisms. The following audit logs are reviewed at least daily: all security events, logs of all CDE system components, logs of critical systems, and logs of authentication, authorization, and accounting services. Automated mechanisms are used to perform audit log reviews.
How often does ISO/IEC 27001:2022 require security event log review export?
The held text of ISO 27001 8.15 (Logging) sets no fixed period: no period set by the text. The held text of ISO 27001 8.16 (Monitoring activities) sets no fixed period: no period set by the text. Produce, store, protect and analyse logs of activities, exceptions and faults. Monitor networks, systems and applications for anomalies and act on potential incidents.
How often does NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 require security event log review export?
The held text of SP 800-53 AU-6 (Audit record review, analysis, and reporting) sets no fixed period: a defined frequency. Requires audit records to be reviewed and analysed on a defined frequency for indications of organization-defined inappropriate or unusual activity and its likely impact, findings to be reported to defined personnel, and the depth of review to be increased when credible information changes the risk.
How often does HIPAA Security Rule require security event log review export?
The held text of HIPAA 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D) (Information System Activity Review (Required)) sets no fixed period: no period set by the text. Regularly review audit logs, access reports, and security incident tracking reports. NIST recommends defined review frequency, SIEM integration, anomaly detection, and documented review evidence.
How often does DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554) require security event log review export?
The held text of DORA Art. 10 (Detection) sets no fixed period: promptly. Financial entities shall have mechanisms to promptly detect anomalous activities, ICT network performance issues and ICT-related incidents, with multiple layers of control, defined alert thresholds and detection processes that enable timely incident response.
How often does NIS2 Directive require security event log review export?
The held text of NIS2 Art.21.2.b (Incident handling) sets no fixed period: no period set by the text. Incident handling here is the internal capability to detect, triage, contain, eradicate, recover from and learn from incidents. It is separate from the reporting duty in Article 23: reporting tells the authority what happened, handling is what the entity does about it. The capability needs defined severity levels, an escalation path that reaches decision makers out of hours, named responsibilities, and evidence that it functions rather than exists on paper. Post-incident review matters because it is the link back to Article 21(2)(f), where the effectiveness of the measures is assessed. The classification scheme deserves particular attention, because the same triage has to be able to recognise a significant incident under Article 23(3) and start the 24-hour clock.
What does the register ask the owner of a security event log review export job?
Which security events does the review cover between runs, and who signs the review record?
The clauses in full
The following audit logs are reviewed at least daily: all security events, logs of all CDE system components, logs of critical systems, and logs of authentication, authorization, and accounting services.
What an assessor asks to see: SIEM dashboard showing daily review sign-off; Documented use cases reviewed daily; Triage tickets from daily reviews; Reviewer assignment and rotation. Where it usually falls short: Reviews skipped on weekends
Automated mechanisms are used to perform audit log reviews.
What an assessor asks to see: SIEM correlation rules export; UEBA or analytics tool configuration; Sample alerts and triage; Tuning records reducing false positives. Where it usually falls short: Manual-only review
Produce, store, protect and analyse logs of activities, exceptions and faults.
Guidance beside it, ISO 27002 8.15: Requires logs to be produced, stored, protected and analysed, covering activities, exceptions, faults and any other event of relevance. Older source material adds that records of user activity, exceptions and security events should be retained for an agreed period to support later investigation and access control monitoring, and that faults should be logged, analysed and acted on.
What an assessor asks to see: log_collection_policy; log_storage_and_protection; log_review_and_analysis; log_retention_and_disposal. Where it usually falls short: Inconsistent log collection across systems
Monitor networks, systems and applications for anomalies and act on potential incidents.
Guidance beside it, ISO 27002 8.16: Requires networks, systems and applications to be monitored for anomalous behaviour, with appropriate action taken to evaluate whether what is observed constitutes an information security incident. Secondary commentary notes the deliberate shift to anomalous behaviour as the trigger, responding to cloud era risk.
What an assessor asks to see: network_anomaly_detection_logs; system_integrity_monitoring_reports; application_behavior_alerts; incident_response_records. Where it usually falls short: alerts not correlated across sources
Requires audit records to be reviewed and analysed on a defined frequency for indications of organization-defined inappropriate or unusual activity and its likely impact, findings to be reported to defined personnel, and the depth of review to be increased when credible information changes the risk.
What an assessor asks to see: Defined review frequency and the activity indicators being looked for; Completed review records with reviewer, date and findings; Reports issued to the defined recipients and evidence of follow-up; Record of a review level adjustment made in response to changed risk. Where it usually falls short: Review is automated alerting only, with no periodic analytical review for slow patterns
Regularly review audit logs, access reports, and security incident tracking reports. NIST recommends defined review frequency, SIEM integration, anomaly detection, and documented review evidence.
What an assessor asks to see: Log review procedure; SIEM correlation rules; Sampled log review records; Anomaly investigation tickets. Where it usually falls short: Logs collected but never reviewed
Financial entities shall have mechanisms to promptly detect anomalous activities, ICT network performance issues and ICT-related incidents, with multiple layers of control, defined alert thresholds and detection processes that enable timely incident response.
What an assessor asks to see: Anomaly/incident detection mechanisms with defined alert thresholds; Monitoring coverage records. Where it usually falls short: No anomaly detection or alerting
Incident handling here is the internal capability to detect, triage, contain, eradicate, recover from and learn from incidents. It is separate from the reporting duty in Article 23: reporting tells the authority what happened, handling is what the entity does about it. The capability needs defined severity levels, an escalation path that reaches decision makers out of hours, named responsibilities, and evidence that it functions rather than exists on paper. Post-incident review matters because it is the link back to Article 21(2)(f), where the effectiveness of the measures is assessed. The classification scheme deserves particular attention, because the same triage has to be able to recognise a significant incident under Article 23(3) and start the 24-hour clock.
What an assessor asks to see: The incident handling procedure with severity levels, roles and escalation paths; Incident records for a representative period showing detection, containment and recovery times; Evidence of out-of-hours coverage and of how escalation reaches decision makers; Post-incident review outputs and the actions they generated, with closure evidence. Where it usually falls short: A response plan that has never been exercised against a realistic scenario
Requirement text quoted from the standards themselves, published at compliance.theartofservice.com, the same publisher as this register, read against the held text of each standard: our statement of each clause, not the instrument verbatim. Run this job through the register