SI-4(17): Integrated Situational Awareness

To meet the si-4(17): integrated situational awareness requirement, you must correlate monitoring outputs from physical security, cybersecurity, and supply chain activities into a single, organization-wide operating picture that drives triage and response. Operationalize it by defining data sources, correlation rules, ownership, and repeatable evidence that proves cross-domain monitoring works in practice ¹.

Key takeaways:

• Treat SI-4(17) as a correlation and governance control, not a “buy a SIEM” control ¹.
• Your evidence needs to show cross-domain inputs, correlation logic, and response outcomes tied to real events ².
• The fastest path is a defined “situational awareness fabric”: sources → normalization → correlation → alerting → response playbooks → metrics.

SI-4(17) asks for one thing: integrated situational awareness across physical, cyber, and supply chain monitoring. In audits, teams fail SI-4(17) less because they lack tools, and more because they cannot prove they correlate signals across domains and act on them consistently. A SOC might monitor EDR and firewall logs; facilities might monitor badge access and cameras; procurement might track third-party security alerts. SI-4(17) expects you to connect those dots into a coherent operating picture that supports decisions.

For a CCO, GRC lead, or security compliance owner, the operational question is simple: “Can we show an assessor that we detect and respond to threats that span physical, cyber, and supply chain vectors?” This page gives you requirement-level implementation guidance: scope, control design, concrete build steps, and the evidence package you need to retain. The goal is assessment-ready execution, not a theoretical architecture diagram.

Where Daydream fits naturally: once you have the control designed, you still need to map ownership, procedures, and recurring evidence so the control stays “always ready.” Daydream is useful as the system of record for that mapping and for collecting evidence on a schedule without chasing teams at audit time.

Regulatory text

Requirement (excerpt): “Correlate information from monitoring physical, cyber, and supply chain activities to achieve integrated, organization-wide situational awareness.” ¹

What the operator must do:
You must (1) monitor relevant physical, cyber, and supply chain signals, (2) bring those signals together, (3) correlate them so relationships are detectable (same identity, asset, location, third party, time window, tactic), and (4) produce an organization-wide view that informs incident triage and response ².

Plain-English interpretation (what SI-4(17) really demands)

SI-4(17) is a “join the datasets” requirement. An assessor is looking for proof that you can connect:

• Physical indicators (badge access anomalies, visitor logs, door forced-open alarms, data center access)
• Cyber indicators (EDR alerts, identity provider logs, cloud control plane events, email security detections)
• Supply chain indicators (third-party compromise notifications, software bill of materials signals if used, supplier outage alerts, risky update behavior)

The output should be practical: fewer blind spots, faster triage, and clearer incident severity because alerts are enriched with cross-domain context.

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

SI-4(17) is relevant to:

• Federal information systems and programs aligned to NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 control baselines ².
• Contractors handling federal data (including environments supporting federal workloads) that adopt 800-53 controls by contract, flow-down, or security requirements ².

Operationally, it applies anywhere you have:

• A SOC or security monitoring function
• Corporate physical security and/or facilities monitoring
• A third-party risk management (TPRM) program that receives supplier security signals
• Distributed IT (cloud + on-prem) where events are fragmented across platforms

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

1) Name the control owner and decision owners

Assign a primary control owner (often SOC manager or security operations lead) and define decision owners for:

• Physical security escalation (facilities/security lead)
• Third-party/supply chain escalation (TPRM/procurement + security)
• Incident command authority (IR lead)

Document responsibilities in a RACI that makes “who correlates what” explicit.

2) Define the situational awareness scope

Create a short scope statement that lists:

• In-scope business units, sites, and networks
• In-scope systems (identity, endpoints, email, cloud, VPN, privileged access)
• In-scope physical monitoring systems (badge, visitor management, critical doors)
• In-scope supply chain inputs (third-party notices, key provider advisories, critical software update channels)

A tight scope prevents the common failure mode: “We correlate everything” (and cannot prove it).

3) Inventory and classify monitoring data sources (minimum viable set)

Build a table with columns: Source, Domain (physical/cyber/supply chain), Owner, Access method, Retention, Normalization status, Onboarding date.

Minimum viable sources that tend to satisfy intent:

• Identity provider authentication logs (cyber)
• Endpoint detection telemetry (cyber)
• Network security telemetry (cyber)
• Badge access logs for critical areas (physical)
• Third-party security notification intake channel (supply chain)

4) Normalize and join on shared keys

Correlation fails when sources cannot be joined. Establish shared keys:

• Identity keys: email/UPN, employee ID, contractor ID, badge ID mapping
• Asset keys: hostname, device ID, cloud instance ID
• Location keys: site code, building, room/door IDs
• Third-party keys: third-party name + service + environment + owner

Maintain a simple “identity and asset crosswalk” artifact owned by IAM/IT with GRC visibility.

5) Implement correlation logic and document it as rules

Write correlation rules that detect cross-domain patterns. Examples:

• Impossible travel + badge mismatch: remote login from unusual geography while badge shows on-site entry at a different location.
• Terminated user risk: HR termination triggers; any badge access or login attempts after termination become high severity.
• Third-party incident + internal anomalies: supplier compromise notice triggers focused hunting for affected integrations, service accounts, or unusual data flows.

Keep correlation rules readable and version-controlled. Assessors accept “simple and working” over “complex and undocumented.”

6) Connect correlation to incident triage and response

Update your incident response runbooks so that:

• Alerts include cross-domain enrichment fields (physical access, third-party context)
• Triage steps instruct analysts to check the other domains
• Escalation criteria define when physical security or TPRM must be paged

This is where many programs break: the correlation exists, but response stays siloed.

7) Prove it works with exercises and real-event tickets

Run a tabletop or test scenario that forces cross-domain correlation (for example, a compromised contractor account plus suspicious badge activity). Capture artifacts: event timeline, screenshots, ticket IDs, decision log, and post-incident improvements.

8) Operationalize recurring evidence collection (make it audit-proof)

Map SI-4(17) to:

• Control owner
• Procedure/runbook
• Evidence sources
• Evidence cadence (aligned to your audit cycle and risk)

Daydream can store this mapping and automate evidence requests so you keep a rolling file of “last period” proof without emailing five teams.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Use this as your SI-4(17) evidence checklist:

• Control narrative describing cross-domain correlation and outcomes ².
• Data source inventory (physical, cyber, supply chain) with owners and onboarding status.
• Correlation rule catalog (rules, severity, owner, last reviewed date).
• Sample correlated alerts showing enrichment across domains (screenshots or exported alert JSON).
• Incident/ticket samples demonstrating triage actions that used cross-domain context.
• Escalation paths and RACI showing who responds for physical and supply chain facets.
• Retention and access evidence for monitoring systems (to show monitoring data is available for correlation).
• Exercise or test results (tabletop notes, after-action items, remediation tracking).

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Assessors tend to ask:

• “Show me an example where a cyber alert was enriched with physical access context.”
• “How do you ingest and act on third-party security incident notifications?”
• “What are your correlation rules, and who approves changes?”
• “How do you ensure identity consistency between IAM accounts and badge IDs?”
• “Is situational awareness organization-wide, or only in one environment?”

Hangups you should preempt:

• Physical security logs are “owned elsewhere” and not accessible to security operations.
• Supply chain monitoring exists only as emails in inboxes, not tracked in a ticketing workflow.
• Correlation exists, but there is no evidence that it drives response decisions.

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

1. Mistake: Treating SI-4(17) as a tooling purchase.
   Fix: Start with sources, join keys, and rules. Tools follow.

2. Mistake: No shared identifiers between domains.
   Fix: Build and maintain an identity/asset crosswalk. Include contractors and service accounts.

3. Mistake: “Organization-wide” claimed, but scope is a single SOC stack.
   Fix: Write a scope statement and show coverage for critical sites, critical systems, and critical third parties.

4. Mistake: Supply chain monitoring equals annual questionnaires.
   Fix: Add an operational intake path for third-party incidents and advisories, and show tickets plus triage.

5. Mistake: Evidence is ad hoc and unrepeatable.
   Fix: Define a recurring evidence plan in Daydream: what to pull, from where, who approves, and where it’s stored.

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for this requirement. Practically, SI-4(17) gaps increase the chance that multi-vector incidents go unrecognized: a physical intrusion paired with credential theft, or a third-party compromise paired with abnormal internal access. Your risk is delayed detection, inconsistent escalation, and weak incident narratives during customer or government reviews ².

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days (foundation and scope)

• Assign control owner and cross-functional RACI (SOC, physical security, TPRM, IR).
• Define scope: sites, systems, critical third parties, and “organization-wide” boundaries.
• Build the monitoring source inventory and identify missing feeds.
• Identify join keys and gaps (badge-to-identity mapping, contractor identity hygiene).

Days 31–60 (correlation and response integration)

• Onboard priority physical and supply chain feeds into your monitoring workflow.
• Implement an initial rule set focused on high-confidence correlations (identity + access + third-party events).
• Update IR runbooks to require cross-domain checks during triage.
• Create the evidence pack template (what screenshots/exports/tickets to retain each cycle).

Days 61–90 (prove operation and harden governance)

• Run a test scenario or tabletop that produces correlated artifacts.
• Tune correlation rules based on false positives/negatives and document changes.
• Establish recurring reviews: rule review, source onboarding review, and joint incident review with physical security and TPRM.
• In Daydream, map SI-4(17) to the owner, procedures, and recurring evidence so the control stays assessment-ready between audits.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need a SIEM to satisfy SI-4(17)?

The requirement is correlation across physical, cyber, and supply chain monitoring, not a specific tool ¹. You can meet intent with other architectures if you can show cross-domain correlation and response evidence.

What counts as “supply chain monitoring” for this control?

Treat supply chain monitoring as operational signals about third-party risk events that could affect you, such as incident notifications or advisories tied to critical third parties. You need a tracked intake and triage workflow, not inbox-only notifications.

Our physical security team won’t grant SOC access to badge logs. Can we still comply?

You need a workable correlation path. If direct access is not possible, set up a controlled integration where relevant events are forwarded to the monitoring function, and document the procedure, approvals, and sample correlated cases.

How do we prove “organization-wide” situational awareness without boiling the ocean?

Define scope and justify it based on critical assets, critical locations, and critical third parties. Show that within that scope, cross-domain correlation is consistent and produces action.

What evidence is strongest for auditors?

Correlated alert examples plus incident tickets that show analysts checked physical and third-party context during triage. Pair that with a maintained rule catalog and a source inventory ².

Where does Daydream help with SI-4(17)?

Daydream is useful for mapping SI-4(17) to a control owner, documenting the operating procedure, and scheduling recurring evidence collection so you can produce the same proof set every audit cycle without scrambling.

Footnotes

1. NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 OSCAL JSON

2. NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5