Annex A 6.3: Information Security Awareness Education Training

Annex a 6.3: information security awareness education training requirement means you must run a role-appropriate security awareness and training program, make it recurring, and be able to prove participation and effectiveness. Operationalize it by defining training scope by audience, assigning ownership, scheduling delivery, tracking completion, testing understanding, and retaining audit-ready evidence. ¹

Key takeaways:

• Build a documented, role-based security awareness and training program, not a one-time course. ²
• Track completion and maintain evidence that training is assigned, delivered, and refreshed. ¹
• Measure effectiveness with practical checks (phishing simulations, quizzes, incident trend review) and keep those records. ²

Annex A 6.3 sits in the “people controls” category of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and is routinely tested by auditors because it is easy to claim and hard to prove well. You need more than an LMS screenshot. You need a program that consistently reaches employees and relevant third parties, matches training depth to job risk, and produces evidence that the organization can show during certification audits, customer due diligence, or internal assurance reviews. ¹

For a Compliance Officer, CCO, or GRC lead, the fastest path is to treat this like any other control: write the requirement into a simple standard, define who must do what by when, implement a training and tracking workflow, and create a recurring evidence pack. Annex A 6.3 also ties directly to incident response performance: weak training increases phishing success, mishandling of data, and delayed reporting. You do not need to boil the ocean. You need a repeatable operating rhythm with clear ownership, segmentation, and proof. ²

Regulatory text

Control reference: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A 6.3 (Information Security Awareness, Education and Training). ¹

Provided excerpt: “ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A control 6.3 implementation expectation (Information Security Awareness Education Training).” ²

Operator interpretation of the text:
You must ensure people who can affect information security receive security awareness messages and appropriate education/training, at the right times (onboarding, changes, and periodically), and you must be able to demonstrate this happened. “Appropriate” means tailored to role and risk exposure, not generic content for everyone. ¹

Plain-English interpretation (what the requirement really demands)

You are expected to run a living program with four properties:

1. Defined scope: Who needs training (employees, interns, contractors, and relevant third parties) and what topics apply to each group.
2. Regular delivery: Training happens on a schedule and at lifecycle events (joiners, movers, leavers; policy changes; new threats).
3. Accountability and tracking: You can show who completed what, when, and what happens if they do not.
4. Effectiveness checks: You validate that training changes behavior or improves readiness, then adjust content when it does not.

Auditors tend to accept many delivery methods (LMS, live sessions, newsletters, simulated phishing), but they reject weak governance and missing evidence. ²

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

Entities: Any organization implementing ISO/IEC 27001, including service organizations that handle customer data or operate shared infrastructure. ¹

People in scope (typical):

• All employees and long-term contractors with system access
• Privileged users (admins, engineers with production access)
• Developers and product teams (secure coding and change risk)
• Customer support and sales (data handling, social engineering exposure)
• Executives (approval pathways, incident reporting expectations)
• Third parties with access to your systems or data (training or equivalent contractual requirement)

Operational triggers that expand scope:

• New systems with sensitive data
• New threat patterns (e.g., targeted phishing against finance)
• Major policy updates (acceptable use, data classification)
• M&A, reorganizations, or new geographies with different legal constraints

What you actually need to do (step-by-step)

1) Assign ownership and write a one-page standard

• Owner: Usually Security/GRC; HR enables onboarding integration; IT supports access gating.
• Document: “Security Awareness, Education & Training Standard” that states audience, frequency approach (event-based + periodic), required topics, tracking method, and consequences for non-completion.
• Map to the ISMS: Reference Annex A 6.3 in your control matrix so the auditor can trace requirement → process → evidence. ¹

2) Build role-based training requirements (minimum viable segmentation)

Create training “tracks” with different depth. Example segmentation that works in practice:

• All staff baseline: phishing, passwords/MFA, device security, data handling, reporting incidents.
• Privileged access track: secure admin behavior, logging expectations, break-glass use, change discipline.
• Engineering track: secure development practices, secrets handling, dependency risk.
• Finance/HR track: payment fraud, payroll diversion, sensitive data handling.
• Executives track: approval controls, crisis communications, incident escalation.

Keep the mapping table simple so it is maintainable and auditable.

3) Define training lifecycle events and delivery channels

Cover the moments auditors ask about:

• Onboarding: assign baseline training automatically at hire/first access.
• Role change: assign track add-ons when someone becomes privileged or moves into sensitive roles.
• Policy change: issue targeted micro-training and require acknowledgement where appropriate.
• Ongoing refresh: send periodic awareness communications and scheduled retraining.

Delivery can include LMS modules, live training, recorded sessions, short required reads with attestations, and simulated phishing. The control cares about outcome and evidence, not the medium. ²

4) Implement completion tracking and escalation

Operationalize like a control, not a campaign:

• System of record: LMS, HRIS integration, or ticketing-based attestations for small populations.
• Workflow: assignment → reminders → escalation → consequences.
• Access gating (where feasible): for high-risk roles, make completion a prerequisite for privileged access or production access approvals.

Your escalation path should be documented and used consistently.

5) Add effectiveness checks (and document how you respond)

Pick measures that create credible evidence:

• Knowledge checks: short quizzes after modules; track pass/fail and remediation.
• Phishing simulations: track results and require follow-up training for repeat failures.
• Behavioral indicators: trend analysis on incident reports, misdirected emails, policy violations, or helpdesk security tickets.
• Feedback loop: update content based on real incidents and near misses.

Auditors often ask, “How do you know training works?” Have an answer that points to artifacts and change actions. ¹

6) Extend to third parties (without boiling the ocean)

For third parties with meaningful access:

• Require proof of their own security awareness training (attestation, SOC 2 report references, or policy statement), or
• Provide your training and require completion, or
• Contractually require role-appropriate training and audit rights for critical providers.

Tie this to your third-party risk management intake so it is repeatable.

7) Package evidence on a recurring cadence

Build an “Annex A 6.3 evidence pack” you can refresh as part of ISMS operations:

• latest training content list and revision dates
• completion and exception reports
• communications samples
• effectiveness metrics and follow-up actions
• management reporting summary

This is where teams fail: they do the work but cannot produce clean evidence during the audit window. ²

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep these artifacts in an audit-ready folder with version control:

• Security Awareness, Education & Training Standard (approved, current)
• Training matrix by role (who gets what)
• Training content inventory (modules, decks, policies, key messages)
• Assignment records (population lists, automation rules)
• Completion reports (by course, by department; exceptions documented)
• Reminder/escalation evidence (emails, tickets, HR follow-up)
• New hire onboarding checklist showing training assignment
• Phishing simulation and quiz results (if used) plus remediation actions
• Management reporting (KPIs/KRIs, risks, and decisions)
• Third-party training clauses or attestations for in-scope third parties

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Auditors and customers commonly probe these points:

1. Scope: “Who is required to take training, and how do you ensure coverage for contractors?”
2. Role appropriateness: “What extra training do admins and developers receive?”
3. Recurrence: “How do you refresh training and awareness after onboarding?”
4. Evidence quality: “Show me completion results for the last period and your exceptions.”
5. Effectiveness: “What changed because of the program?”
6. Governance: “Who owns the program and reviews content changes?” ¹

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

• Mistake: One generic annual course for everyone.
  Fix: Add at least privileged + engineering + high-fraud roles as separate tracks.

• Mistake: No joiner/mover workflow.
  Fix: Connect HR events or access requests to automatic training assignment.

• Mistake: Completion tracking exists, but exceptions are informal.
  Fix: Record exceptions with approvals, compensating controls, and closure dates.

• Mistake: Awareness emails with no proof of delivery or readership.
  Fix: Archive campaigns, send via tracked tools, or pair messages with attestations/quizzes for key topics.

• Mistake: No effectiveness story.
  Fix: Maintain a short “program outcomes” log tied to incidents, near misses, and training updates.

Risk implications (why auditors care)

Annex A 6.3 is a control that reduces human-driven security failures: phishing clicks, credential mishandling, poor data handling, and delayed reporting. Weak implementation creates two risks:

• Security risk: higher likelihood of incidents triggered by user behavior.
• Assurance risk: failed ISO audits or customer due diligence because you cannot evidence control operation. ¹

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

Use phases rather than fixed durations if your environment is complex; the intent is to reach an auditable baseline quickly and then mature.

Immediate (stabilize and prove)

• Name an owner and backup.
• Publish the one-page standard mapped to Annex A 6.3.
• Identify populations in scope and current training status.
• Stand up basic tracking (even if manual) and create an exceptions log.

Near-term (make it role-based and repeatable)

• Build the role-based training matrix and assign tracks.
• Integrate onboarding and role-change triggers (HR or access workflows).
• Implement escalation for non-completion with HR and managers.
• Create the evidence pack structure and start monthly evidence snapshots.

Ongoing (measure and improve)

• Add effectiveness checks (quizzes, simulations, trend reviews).
• Review content after major incidents or material policy changes.
• Expand third-party coverage based on access criticality.
• Report program health to leadership as part of ISMS management oversight. ¹

How Daydream helps (practitioner fit)

Daydream is most useful for Annex A 6.3 when your gap is evidence discipline rather than content availability. Use it to map Annex A 6.3 to a documented control operation, schedule recurring evidence capture, and keep an audit-ready packet that ties training assignments, completion reporting, exceptions, and follow-up actions together.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Annex A 6.3 require annual security awareness training?

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A 6.3 expects awareness, education, and training to be provided appropriately and maintained, but the exact cadence is an organizational decision. Set a recurrence model you can defend and evidence, and add event-based training for changes in role, policy, or risk. ¹

Who must be included besides employees?

Include contractors and relevant third parties who access your systems or handle your data. If you do not train them directly, require equivalent training contractually and retain proof or attestations based on their criticality. ²

What evidence is “enough” for an ISO audit?

Auditors typically want a documented program, proof of assignment and completion, and proof you handle exceptions. Add effectiveness evidence (quizzes, simulations, or improvement actions) to answer “how do you know it works?” cleanly. ¹

We have awareness emails and Slack posts. Does that count?

It can support the “awareness” aspect, but it rarely satisfies “training” by itself. Pair informal awareness with trackable training events and retain campaign copies, distribution lists, and follow-up actions for high-risk topics. ²

How do we handle teams that cannot take training due to operational constraints?

Use a documented exception with manager approval, a compensating control (for example, temporary access limitation), and a defined closure condition. Auditors react badly to exceptions that live only in email threads. ¹

Do we need different training for engineers under Annex A 6.3?

If engineers can materially affect security through code, configuration, or access, role-appropriate training is expected. Document the engineering track and show completion separately from baseline staff training. ²

Footnotes

1. ISO/IEC 27001 overview

2. ISMS.online Annex A control index