A.5.1 Organizational
Policies for information security
Structured attributes from ISO/IEC 27002:2022 — control type · CIA properties · cybersecurity concept · operational capability · security domain. What do these mean?
Mapped NIST 800-53 r5 controls (38)
Our AI-authored reading (authority llm_unverified, under review) of how this ISO control and each NIST 800-53 control relate. Not an ISO or NIST product.
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial). gov = governs / implements (a mandate, not coverage).
Why these map — AI rationale (under review)
- PL-1fullcovers — A.5.1 establishes the overarching information security policy and supporting topic-specific policies, directly fulfilling PL-1's requirement for documented policies and procedures that address the full scope of security controls.
- AC-1mostlycovers — A.5.1's focus on ensuring policies for information security (including continuing suitability, adequacy, effectiveness per business/legal/contractual needs) accounts for the bulk of AC-1's policy development/dissemination requirements, but leaves a residual on the explicit procedures component and on some of the detailed content elements (e.g., specific roles/responsibilities/coordination language) that AC-1 mandates.
- AU-1mostlycovers — A.5.1's focus on establishing, maintaining, and ensuring the ongoing suitability/adequacy/effectiveness of information security policies (including alignment to business/legal/contractual requirements) accounts for the bulk of au-1's policy development, documentation, dissemination, and consistency obligations, but leaves a residual on the explicit audit-and-accountability-specific content, roles, and dissemination mechanics that au-1 requires.
- CM-1mostlycovers — A.5.1's focus on ensuring policies remain suitable/adequate/effective per business+legal+contractual requirements accounts for the bulk of CM-1's policy-development mandate (purpose/scope/roles/commitment/compliance and consistency with laws/directives), but leaves a residual slice around explicit dissemination, organizational coordination language, and configuration-management-specific tailoring that A.5.1 does not reach.
- CP-1mostlycovers — A.5.1's focus on establishing, maintaining, and ensuring the ongoing suitability/adequacy/effectiveness of information security policies (including alignment to business/legal/contractual requirements) accounts for the bulk of cp-1's policy-development mandate, but leaves a residual on the explicit procedures component and on contingency-specific tailoring.
- IR-1mostlycovers — A.5.1's broad mandate for policies that remain suitable/adequate/effective and aligned to all business/legal/contractual requirements accounts for the bulk of IR-1's policy development/dissemination requirements, but leaves a residual slice (explicit IR-specific content elements like purpose/scope/roles/coordination plus the separate procedures component) uncovered by this single general policy control.
- PM-9mostlyaligns with — A.5.1 requires the policy to be derived from business strategy, regulatory obligations, and risk assessments, which is the same strategic foundation that PM-9 uses to define the organization's risk management strategy.
- SC-1mostlycovers — A.5.1's focus on establishing, maintaining, and ensuring the ongoing suitability/adequacy/effectiveness of information security policies (including alignment to business/legal/contractual needs) accounts for the bulk of SC-1's policy development, documentation, dissemination, and consistency requirements, but leaves a residual on SC-1's explicit procedures component and its detailed content elements (e.g., roles, management commitment) that are only partially addressed by the higher-level policy mandate.
- AC-1partialaligns with — A.5.1 mandates topic-specific policies for access control and assigns responsibilities, satisfying the policy and procedure component of AC-1 even though AC-1 focuses solely on access control.
- AU-1partialaligns with — A.5.1 requires a topic-specific policy for incident management and overall policy governance, which aligns with AU-1's demand for documented audit and accountability policies and procedures.
- CM-1partialaligns with — A.5.1 requires topic-specific policies for secure configuration and vulnerability management, which parallels CM-1's requirement for configuration management policies and procedures.
- CP-1partialaligns with — A.5.1 includes a topic-specific policy for backup, satisfying the policy and procedure element of CP-1 for contingency planning.
- IR-1partialaligns with — A.5.1 explicitly calls for a topic-specific policy on information security incident management, meeting the policy-establishment intent of IR-1.
- SC-1partialaligns with — A.5.1 requires topic-specific policies for networking security and cryptography, which aligns with SC-1's mandate for system and communications protection policies.
Aligned NIST CSF 2.0 outcomes (18)
NIST CSF 2.0 outcomes this ISO control aligns with — our AI-authored analysis (authority llm_unverified, under review).
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial). gov = governs / implements (a mandate, not coverage).
Why these map — AI rationale (under review)
- GV.PO-01fullcovers — The ISO control establishes an overarching information security policy approved by top management that is explicitly derived from business strategy, regulatory obligations, and risk considerations, directly satisfying the CSF outcome of creating risk-management policy grounded in organizational context and strategy.
- GV.PO-02fullcovers — Periodic review, update, communication, and enforcement of both the high-level policy and supporting topic-specific policies in response to changes in requirements, risks, and lessons learned fully align with the CSF requirement to keep policies current and enforced.
- GV.OC-03mostlyaligns with — The policy explicitly incorporates legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements, ensuring the organization’s cybersecurity governance reflects these obligations as required by the CSF subcategory.
- GV.RR-02mostlyaligns with — Assigning information-security responsibilities to defined roles and allocating policy-development authority based on competency directly supports the CSF outcome of establishing, communicating, and understanding cybersecurity roles and responsibilities.
- GV.OC-01partialaligns with — By requiring the information security policy to be informed by business strategy and objectives, the control helps ensure cybersecurity risk management is guided by the organization’s mission.
- GV.RM-01partialaligns with — The policy framework includes statements on objectives and continual improvement, thereby helping to establish and gain stakeholder agreement on cybersecurity risk-management objectives.
- GV.RM-01partialcovers — A.5.1's policies for management direction and support (including alignment to business/legal requirements) address a slice of establishing risk management objectives with stakeholders, but the bulk of GV.RM-01 centers on specific risk objectives rather than general policy.
- GV.RR-02partialcovers — A.5.1's focus on establishing and maintaining suitable information security policies (including management direction) addresses only a slice of GV.RR-02's broader requirement to establish, communicate, understand, and enforce specific roles/responsibilities/authorities for cybersecurity risk management
- GV.OC-01governs — Assessed as NOT holding by the authoring instrument at v1.22-2026-08-29. This row records a tested non-relation; it is not a graded claim and carries no rationale, because the instrument produced none when the verb did not hold.
- GV.OC-01implements — Assessed as NOT holding by the authoring instrument at v1.22-2026-08-29. This row records a tested non-relation; it is not a graded claim and carries no rationale, because the instrument produced none when the verb did not hold.
Related OWASP ASVS 5.0 requirements (5)
Application-security verification requirements (OWASP ASVS 5.0) this ISO control aligns with; links open the ASVS chapter. Our AI-authored analysis (authority llm_unverified, under review) — many ISO controls have no ASVS counterpart.
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial). gov = governs / implements (a mandate, not coverage).
Related weaknesses / CWE (8)
Weakness classes this ISO control helps prevent or mitigate — our AI-authored analysis (authority llm_unverified, under review).
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial). gov = governs / implements (a mandate, not coverage).
Why these map — AI rationale (under review)
- CWE-269nonemitigates — Policy-mandated assignment of roles and the requirement for topic-specific policies on access control and privilege management help ensure privileges are granted only according to documented need rather than ad-hoc decisions.
- CWE-1076prevents — Policies can mandate adherence to conventions but do not guarantee technical enforcement.
- CWE-213prevents — High-level policy can mandate consistent handling of sensitive data across stakeholder expectations.
- CWE-284prevents — High-level policy that explicitly assigns security responsibilities and mandates topic-specific rules (including access control) reduces the chance that developers or administrators will implement systems without proper authorization checks.
- CWE-285prevents — By requiring documented authorization rules and periodic policy reviews, the control makes it less likely that authorization decisions will be omitted or implemented inconsistently across applications.
- CWE-732prevents — Topic-specific policies on asset management and secure configuration establish expectations for correct permission settings on critical resources, lowering the likelihood that default or overly permissive permissions will be left in place.
Mitigated MITRE ATT&CK techniques (117)
Adversary techniques (MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise) this ISO control helps mitigate; links open attack.mitre.org. Our AI-authored analysis (authority llm_unverified, under review).
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial). gov = governs / implements (a mandate, not coverage).
Prevented OWASP Web Top 10 (2025) risks (1)
OWASP Web Top 10 (2025) risk categories this ISO control helps prevent or mitigate — our AI-authored analysis (authority llm_unverified, under review).
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial). gov = governs / implements (a mandate, not coverage).
Control IDs, short titles and the structured attribute table (control type, CIA properties, cybersecurity-concept, operational capability, security domain) are facts from ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A / ISO/IEC 27002:2022. The full implementation guidance prose lives in ISO/IEC 27002:2022 — not reproduced here. Cross-walks to NIST 800-53, NIST CSF 2.0, OWASP ASVS, CWE, MITRE ATT&CK and OWASP Web Top 10 are our own AI-authored analysis (authority llm_unverified, under review), not an ISO, NIST, MITRE or OWASP product — how ours compare.