A.5.2 Organizational
Information security roles and responsibilities
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 (10)
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)
- PS-9mostlyaligns with — Both controls require that security-related duties be explicitly assigned to positions and documented so accountability is clear.
- AC-6partialaligns with — Both stress that individuals should be granted only the authority needed to perform their assigned security duties.
- AT-3partialaligns with — Both require that personnel assigned security responsibilities receive role-specific training and ongoing competence development.
- CA-6partialaligns with — Both require that residual-risk acceptance decisions be made by formally designated authorities.
- PM-2partialaligns with — Both emphasize designating senior leadership with overall responsibility for the information-security program and its governance.
Aligned NIST CSF 2.0 outcomes (9)
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.RR-02fullcovers — The ISO control directly establishes, documents, and communicates cybersecurity roles and responsibilities across the organization, which is the core outcome of this CSF subcategory.
- GV.RR-01mostlyaligns with — By requiring leadership accountability for security responsibilities and ensuring delegated tasks are verified, the control supports the CSF outcome of leadership ownership and a risk-aware culture.
- GV.RR-03partialaligns with — The control's emphasis on competence, ongoing support, and defined authorization levels helps ensure resources are allocated appropriately to fulfill assigned security roles.
- GV.RR-04partialaligns with — Requiring individuals to be competent and kept current in their security roles aligns with incorporating cybersecurity responsibilities into human resources practices.
- GV.SC-02partialaligns with — The control's requirement to define and communicate responsibilities for all personnel using organizational assets extends to supplier and partner coordination when third parties are involved.
Related OWASP ASVS 5.0 requirements (4)
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-269partialprevents — Defining and communicating authorization levels for each role limits the assignment of excessive or unnecessary privileges.
- CWE-284partialprevents — Explicitly assigning and documenting who owns each security responsibility reduces the chance that access decisions are left undefined or inconsistently enforced.
- CWE-708partialprevents — Role definitions can require ownership accountability, but the control itself does not address technical assignment errors.
- CWE-732partialprevents — Documented responsibility for protecting assets encourages correct permission settings rather than leaving them at insecure defaults.
- CWE-1076nonenone — Defined roles can assign responsibility for convention compliance but do not ensure it occurs.
- CWE-250nonenone — Requiring competence and accountability for each role discourages the routine granting of privileges that exceed what is needed to perform the job.
- CWE-862nonenone — Clear ownership of authorization decisions makes missing or bypassed authorization checks more likely to be noticed and corrected.
Prevented OWASP Web Top 10 (2025) risks (3)
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).
Why these map — AI rationale (under review)
- A02partialmitigates — Defining who owns each security process and requiring documented authorization levels decreases the likelihood that systems are deployed or left in insecure default states due to unclear ownership.
- A01nonemitigates — Clear assignment and documentation of security responsibilities reduces the chance that access decisions are made inconsistently or left to ad-hoc judgment, thereby limiting unauthorized access paths.
- A07nonemitigates — Explicitly allocating responsibility for authentication-related controls and requiring competent, up-to-date role holders helps ensure authentication mechanisms are correctly implemented and maintained.
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.