Framework - SOC 2 Compliance Course

The purpose and scope of Common Criteria 6 (CC6) are to ensure that only authorized individuals—human or machine—can access organizational systems and data, and only to the extent necessary for their duties. CC6 defines the architecture and discipline of logical access control, which includes identity and access management (IAM), single sign-on (SSO), multi-factor authentication (MFA), and the full joiner–mover–leaver (JML) lifecycle. Logical access directly enforces the principles of least privilege and accountability, preventing unauthorized use of systems while maintaining traceability for every login, token, or API key. By managing workforce, customer, and service accounts consistently under these principles, CC6 turns the abstract concept of “access control” into concrete, verifiable protection against insider threats and external compromise.

Single sign-on (SSO) simplifies identity management while enhancing control. By centralizing authentication through trusted identity providers, organizations reduce password sprawl and enforce consistent session policies across cloud and on-premise systems. SSO enables stronger monitoring of access events, making anomalies more visible and actionable. Risk-based access policies can integrate with SSO to enforce conditional authentication, such as requiring MFA for unfamiliar devices or geographic regions. Session management and timeout configurations should be standardized to prevent persistence beyond safe limits. When designed well, SSO doesn’t just improve user convenience—it strengthens assurance by consolidating identity verification into a single, well-governed gateway.

Implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) is one of the most effective safeguards against unauthorized access. MFA should be mandatory for all privileged accounts and for remote or high-risk connections. Accepted methods—hardware tokens, authenticator apps, or FIDO2 keys—should be documented and centrally managed. Step-up authentication, which introduces additional factors for sensitive transactions, adds depth to risk-based enforcement. Monitoring enrollment rates and failed attempts ensures that MFA isn’t just configured but actively used. Exceptions to MFA must be justified, approved, and temporary. When properly deployed, MFA creates a layered defense that neutralizes many credential theft and phishing attacks before they can escalate.

Service and API accounts—non-human identities—require the same discipline as human users. Each must have a clearly documented purpose and owner. Credentials should be stored securely in vaults, rotated regularly, and restricted to the minimum permissions necessary for their function. Scoped tokens or IAM policies limit exposure to relevant systems and actions. Monitoring for inactivity or excessive privilege ensures that forgotten credentials don’t become hidden vulnerabilities. Well-managed service accounts demonstrate maturity: they support automation without weakening control, bridging efficiency with security through accountable design.

The access request and approval process must balance agility with control. Standardized workflows in IAM platforms should route access requests through appropriate approvers, often requiring dual validation for sensitive systems. Requests must link directly to defined roles and need-to-know principles, preventing privilege inflation. All approvals and outcomes must be logged, timestamped, and retained as evidence. Periodic audits of request histories verify compliance and expose patterns of over-granting. Automating this workflow reduces delays while preserving rigor, ensuring that every access decision remains traceable and defensible.

Role-based access control (RBAC) organizes permissions into structured, predefined sets tied to job functions. This model enforces least privilege by granting only the permissions essential for each role and separating development, testing, and production access. Role definitions should evolve with the organization’s structure, periodically reviewed for relevance and duplication. Recertification cycles—typically quarterly—ensure that roles still align with business and security needs. By codifying permissions, RBAC eliminates ad hoc access, minimizes complexity, and allows auditors to see precisely how privilege decisions are determined and maintained.

Advanced organizations employ attribute-based or policy-based access control (ABAC/PBAC) to complement RBAC with dynamic decision-making. These systems use contextual data—such as device health, geolocation, or behavior patterns—to enforce adaptive policies in real time. For instance, a user logging in from an unmanaged device might face stricter restrictions or step-up authentication. Federation capabilities extend these controls across multiple tenants and providers, supporting single governance across hybrid ecosystems. Policy evaluations must be auditable, with logs showing decisions and enforcement outcomes. Adaptive controls align CC6 with modern zero-trust architectures, where access is continuously validated, not granted indefinitely.

For more cyber related content and books, please check out cyber author dot me. Also, there are other prepcasts on Cybersecurity and more at Bare Metal Cyber dot com.

Effective logging and monitoring of access events gives visibility into how identities interact with systems. Every authentication—successful or failed—must be recorded, including timestamps, device fingerprints, and geographic data where possible. Alert thresholds should be defined for anomalies such as repeated login failures, impossible travel patterns, or unusual session durations. These logs should feed into the organization’s security information and event management (SIEM) platform for correlation with other incident detection sources. Reviewing these logs on a scheduled cadence, with escalation procedures for high-severity anomalies, ensures that access controls don’t operate in isolation—they integrate with continuous threat detection and response workflows, enabling real-time accountability.

Remote access governance extends logical control beyond the office perimeter. Whether using VPNs, zero-trust gateways, or cloud-based access proxies, every connection must validate both device posture and user identity. Device compliance checks—patch level, encryption status, and endpoint protection—should occur before session establishment. Network segmentation limits exposure, granting access only to necessary services. All remote connections require prior approval and must be logged, capturing details of connection source and duration. Continuous monitoring for unusual patterns—such as logins from prohibited regions—helps detect compromised credentials. This governance ensures that mobility and flexibility do not dilute the rigor of logical access control.

In multi-tenant architectures, customer and tenant access segregation safeguards against cross-organization exposure. Authentication domains must isolate customer credentials, and tenancy boundaries must prevent data from one tenant being visible to another. Shared environments should enforce least privilege at every layer—application, database, and network. Hardening configurations, validating access restrictions, and conducting penetration tests confirm that segregation remains intact. Any administrative tools with multi-tenant visibility should operate under enhanced logging and approval requirements. This segregation forms the technical embodiment of confidentiality and integrity within cloud services, proving that one customer’s trust cannot compromise another’s.

Managing third-party and vendor access introduces heightened risk because external entities often require temporary, high-privilege permissions. Each engagement should begin with due diligence and execution of nondisclosure agreements. Access must be strictly time-bound and purpose-specific, expiring automatically at the end of the engagement. Vendor activities should be logged comprehensively—who connected, when, for what purpose, and what actions were taken. Revocation must occur immediately upon project completion or termination, and retained session logs provide both operational evidence and forensic insight. Treating vendor access with the same or greater rigor as internal privileged access protects the organization’s supply chain integrity.

Occasionally, emergencies require break-glass or emergency access, allowing trusted personnel to perform critical actions when normal mechanisms fail. These accounts must be preapproved, securely stored, and used only under documented conditions—typically during outages or security incidents. Every session must be logged in detail, reviewed immediately after use, and deactivated when the emergency concludes. Secrets associated with these accounts should be rotated post-event to prevent reuse. Break-glass processes provide resilience under duress without sacrificing accountability, ensuring the organization can respond swiftly yet safely in crisis conditions.

Physical-to-logical access linkage closes the gap between who is in the building and who is in the system. By correlating badge access records with login timestamps, organizations can detect anomalies such as accounts logging in remotely while the holder is physically onsite—or worse, when the holder is absent. Badge deactivation should trigger an immediate account review to ensure logical access is revoked. Unified identity governance dashboards that merge physical and digital records help spot misuse or insider threats. This integration strengthens assurance that all identity pathways—virtual and physical—are governed by a single source of truth.

Modern IAM environments rely heavily on tooling and automation enablement. Platforms like Okta, Azure AD, or Ping Identity centralize authentication and automate provisioning through connectors and APIs. Automated workflows handle access approvals, revocations, and certification reminders, drastically reducing manual error. Reports generated by these systems provide real-time visibility into identity posture and compliance metrics. Periodic reconciliations verify that all applications are synchronized with the directory of record. When automation is governed properly, it shifts identity management from a reactive task to an orchestrated, self-validating process that scales with the organization’s growth.

Auditors expect a well-documented evidence set for CC6, proving that access controls are designed and operating effectively. Representative artifacts include access review samples showing managerial approvals, provisioning and deprovisioning tickets with timestamps, and MFA enforcement screenshots or export reports from the identity provider. Privileged access session logs and revocation proofs further demonstrate operational oversight. Collectively, this evidence confirms that logical access is not only controlled but continuously verified—a living system of protection that produces its own assurance record.

Despite strong frameworks, common pitfalls frequently undermine CC6 compliance. Orphaned accounts remain active after staff departures, shared roles accumulate excessive privileges, and MFA exceptions linger without periodic justification. Manual tracking often leads to delays in deprovisioning or incomplete certification cycles. Remedies include enforcing automated JML integration, establishing strict SLAs for access revocation, and centralizing visibility through dashboards that flag anomalies. Regular IAM audits and reconciliation reports reveal gaps before they reach auditors, turning access control from a static rule set into a monitored, adaptive ecosystem.

Tracking metrics and monitoring health provides measurable insight into identity program performance. Key indicators include the number of privileged users and reduction trends over time, access review completion rates, frequency of failed logins or anomaly detections, and mean time to revoke access after termination. These metrics, visualized in governance dashboards, allow leadership to gauge efficiency and risk posture at a glance. Correlating them with incident trends shows how identity management directly contributes to overall security outcomes. Mature organizations treat these metrics as vital business data, not compliance overhead.

In conclusion, CC6 defines how digital identity translates into trust. By governing IAM, SSO, MFA, and JML with automation, audit trails, and least-privilege enforcement, organizations ensure that every account—human or machine—is both purposeful and accountable. Logical access is where governance, technology, and human behavior converge, and its success determines the credibility of every other control in SOC 2. With CC6 mastered, assurance evolves from static defense to adaptive control, setting the stage for CC7: Operational Management, where organizations learn to sustain, monitor, and improve systems through disciplined change control, incident response, and performance resilience.