External GRC Compliance Evidence
External GRC Compliance Evidence refers to the verifiable, objective artifacts and data points gathered from the public-facing, unauthenticated internet that demonstrate an organization's adherence to a specific Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) mandate.
It is the proof an organization can present to an auditor or regulator that its internal security policies are correctly implemented and functioning effectively where they interact with the outside world.
Key Characteristics of the Evidence
This type of evidence is critical because it validates the effectiveness of internal security controls from an attacker's perspective. It must satisfy three core criteria:
1. Objectivity and Verifiability
The evidence must be based on data that is publicly accessible and repeatable by a third party. It cannot rely on internal system logs or self-attestation.
Positive Evidence Example (Proof of Compliance): A screenshot showing that the organization's public domain has correctly configured and enforced DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) or a publicly verifiable Email Security Policy (DMARC) record. This proves the implementation of a protective control.
Negative Evidence Example (Proof of Non-Compliance): A scan result showing a publicly exposed SSH port or an expired SSL/TLS certificate on a customer-facing web server. This directly proves a failure to maintain a core security control as required by frameworks like NIST CSF or ISO 27001.
2. Contextual Mapping to GRC Mandates
The evidence must be directly linked to a specific requirement within a regulation or framework. The data itself is useless unless it is mapped to a compliance standard.
GDPR Evidence: The evidence would be a finding of sensitive customer data (PII) residing in an unsecured public cloud storage bucket or an external web form lacking proper encryption. This provides direct proof of a failure to uphold the GDPR's requirements for the confidentiality of personal data.
PCI DSS Evidence: The evidence might be a scan result showing the use of a deprecated or weak cryptographic protocol (e.g., TLS 1.0) on a payment processing portal, which violates the standards for secure communication required by the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard.
3. Continuous and Timely Artifacts
Unlike evidence from a traditional annual audit, which is a static snapshot, external GRC compliance evidence is ideally generated continuously to prove that compliance is maintained over time.
This continuous stream of evidence demonstrates due diligence and proactive risk management, showing that security gaps are not allowed to persist for long periods in the external environment.
In summary, External GRC Compliance Evidence is the indispensable proof that an organization's paper-based security policies translate into tangible, observable security controls on the internet.
ThreatNG provides the necessary mechanisms to collect and present verifiable External GRC Compliance Evidence by merging external attack surface monitoring with compliance framework mapping. It validates that an organization's internal controls are effectively implemented and visible to the outside world, satisfying auditor requirements for objective proof of security posture.
External Discovery and Continuous Monitoring for Evidence
ThreatNG's core capabilities ensure that the evidence collected is objective and continuously available, meeting a key requirement for modern compliance.
External Discovery: The platform can perform purely external unauthenticated discovery using no connectors. This ensures that all evidence gathered is exactly what an external auditor or an adversary would see, providing undeniable proof of the operational state of controls.
Continuous Monitoring: ThreatNG provides continuous monitoring of the external attack surface, digital risk, and security ratings. This generates evidence over time, proving sustained compliance and due diligence, which is far more valuable to an auditor than a single point-in-time snapshot.
Example of Evidence Collection Helping
Continuous monitoring flags a primary customer portal that has a publicly exposed SSH port. This is immediate negative evidence of non-compliance with the Protect function of frameworks like the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF), which mandates the control of network boundaries. The time-stamped finding provides an unassailable artifact for a compliance report.
External Assessment for Compliance Mapping
The platform's external assessment is the mechanism that turns raw external findings into formalized compliance evidence by linking them to specific regulations.
External GRC Assessment: This core feature identifies exposed assets, critical vulnerabilities, and digital risks and formally maps the findings to requirements within frameworks like GDPR, HIPAA, and NIST CSF.
For Example:
GDPR Evidence: The assessment checks for external indicators of data protection failure. ThreatNG’s Domain Intelligence analyzes the security headers and encryption protocols on customer-facing websites. If a key site is running an expired SSL/TLS certificate or lacks the required security headers, this generates negative evidence of non-compliance with the GDPR's requirement for integrity and confidentiality of personal data.
HIPAA Evidence: The assessment identifies exposure of health-related systems. ThreatNG's Subdomain Intelligence may discover a subdomain linked to a patient scheduling system that is running deprecated encryption protocols (e.g., TLS 1.0). This evidence can be presented to an auditor as direct proof of a failure to secure electronic Protected Health Information (ePHI) as required by HIPAA's Security Rule.
Positive Security Indicators: The assessment also identifies evidence of successful compliance. Finding a fully configured DMARC record or the external detection of a deployed Web Application Firewall (WAF) provides positive evidence that the organizational GRC requirement for protective email controls or application defense is operational.
Investigation Modules and Intelligence Repositories
These tools generate the granular, context-rich evidence that validates the severity and immediacy of a compliance failure.
Investigation Modules (Search Engine Exploitation): This module hunts for accidental data exposure, which is high-value compliance evidence.
Example of Evidence: The Search Engine Attack Surface module uncovers Susceptible Files (like an internal server inventory spreadsheet) that have been indexed by search engines. This is irrefutable negative evidence of a compliance failure related to data classification and access control, as required by every major GRC framework.
Intelligence Repositories (DarCache Rupture): This repository provides evidence of a failure in identity management, a core GRC domain.
Example of Evidence: The repository flags multiple Compromised Credentials for NHI (Non-Human Identities) or key employee accounts. This is direct negative evidence of a failure to enforce strong password policies and use Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA), violating controls in frameworks like NIST SP 800-53.
Reporting for Auditor Review
ThreatNG's reporting capabilities are structured to present this evidence directly to GRC personnel and auditors.
Reporting: ThreatNG provides dedicated External GRC Assessment Mappings reports for specific frameworks (like NIST CSF, GDPR, and HIPAA). These reports serve as the official evidence package, detailing the technical finding, the GRC control it violates, and the prioritization level.
Knowledgebase: Each finding includes a Reasoning section that explains the compliance context and provides clear Recommendations for remediation. This structure reduces the time an organization needs to prepare for an audit by providing pre-packaged, validated evidence.
Cooperation with Complementary Solutions
ThreatNG's external compliance evidence is used to validate and automate actions within internal GRC and security systems.
Cooperation with Internal GRC and Audit Systems: The External GRC Assessment evidence generated by ThreatNG (e.g., a NIST CSF control failure due to an exposed SSH port) can be automatically sent to an internal GRC or Audit Management System (like those from vendors such as Archer, MetricStream, or Service Now GRC). The complementary solution uses this external, objective evidence to automatically populate the compliance control failure status, shortening the audit cycle and reducing manual evidence collection efforts.
Cooperation with Configuration Management Database (CMDB) Systems: ThreatNG's External Discovery uncovers unauthorized or forgotten external assets (Shadow IT). This evidence of an unmanaged asset is then fed to the internal CMDB solution. The CMDB uses this evidence to flag the asset as non-compliant with inventory management policies, forcing the responsible team to either decommission it or formally register and secure it, thereby closing a critical compliance gap.
