SI-7(2): Automated Notifications of Integrity Violations

To meet the si-7(2): automated notifications of integrity violations requirement, you must run integrity verification with automated tooling and configure that tooling to automatically notify defined recipients whenever it detects an integrity discrepancy. Operationally, this means: pick what “integrity violation” signals matter, wire alerts into your incident workflow, and retain evidence that notifications fire and are handled. ¹

Key takeaways:

• Define “who gets notified” (the SI-7(2) organization-defined parameter) and make it explicit in procedures and alert routing. ¹
• Notifications must be automated and triggered by integrity verification discrepancies, not manual discovery. ¹
• Auditors will look for proof of end-to-end operation: detection → notification → ticket/response → closure, tied to scoped systems. ²

SI-7(2) is an execution control. It is not satisfied by a policy statement that “we monitor integrity,” and it is not satisfied by integrity checks that log locally with no alerting. The enhancement requires automated tools to notify a defined audience when integrity verification detects discrepancies. ¹

For a CCO, GRC lead, or Compliance Officer, the fast path is to treat SI-7(2) like an alerting and routing requirement with three mandatory decisions: (1) what assets and data flows are in scope for integrity verification, (2) what signals count as an “integrity discrepancy,” and (3) who must be notified, how quickly, and through which channel so the organization can respond. The implementation then becomes mostly operational plumbing across security tooling (FIM, EDR, CI/CD, code signing, database integrity checks), SIEM/SOAR or ticketing, and an incident response playbook.

This page gives requirement-level guidance you can implement quickly: scoping, step-by-step build, minimum evidence set, audit questions, and common ways teams fail this control in real environments.

Requirement: SI-7(2) Automated notifications of integrity violations

Control intent: integrity checks are only useful if the right people know quickly and can act. SI-7(2) forces integrity monitoring to produce actionable, automated notifications to defined recipients. ²

Plain-English interpretation

You must:

1. Run integrity verification (for software, firmware, configuration, files, images, or other protected objects, depending on your environment).
2. Detect discrepancies between the expected integrity state and observed state.
3. Automatically notify a defined set of recipients when discrepancies are discovered. ¹

The control’s operator trap: teams often have integrity tooling, but the signal is buried in logs or dashboards that nobody watches. SI-7(2) expects a push-style notification.

Regulatory text

“Employ automated tools that provide notification to [organization-defined personnel or roles] upon discovering discrepancies during integrity verification.” ¹

What the operator must do: select the automated integrity verification tools in scope, define who must be notified (roles or groups, not individuals), configure the tools or your SIEM/SOAR to send notifications upon integrity discrepancies, and prove the alerts are generated and handled for scoped systems. ²

Who it applies to

Entity types (common):

• Federal information systems implementing NIST SP 800-53 control baselines. ²
• Contractor systems handling federal data where NIST SP 800-53 is contractually required (common in federal contracting and regulated overlays). ²

Operational contexts where SI-7(2) is “make-or-break”:

• Production servers and endpoints where unauthorized file/config changes can introduce malware or persistence.
• CI/CD and build systems where tampering can corrupt artifacts before deployment.
• Container/Kubernetes environments where image integrity and runtime drift matter.
• Databases and critical stores where integrity checks detect corruption or unauthorized changes.

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

Step 1 — Scope integrity verification targets (write it down)

Create a scoped list of “objects” you verify for integrity, mapped to systems:

• OS/system files (critical paths)
• Application binaries and libraries
• Configuration baselines (OS, middleware, application, IaC)
• Container images and manifests
• Deployment artifacts (packages, signed releases)
• Security tooling configurations (EDR policies, logging agents)

Output: “SI-7 Integrity Verification Scope” document (1–2 pages) tied to your system inventory/SSP. ²

Step 2 — Define “integrity discrepancy” in operational terms

Document which events must trigger notification. Examples you can adapt:

• File Integrity Monitoring (FIM) detects change to a protected file path not linked to an approved change record.
• Code signature validation fails on a production binary.
• Container image digest mismatch between registry and runtime.
• Baseline configuration drift detected on a hardened host.
• Database checksum validation failure on a critical table space.

Keep the definitions measurable: event types, severities, and where the signal originates.

Output: alerting matrix (signal → severity → notify who → create ticket yes/no).

Step 3 — Set the organization-defined notification recipients (ODP)

The control text explicitly expects an “organization-defined” recipient set. Do not leave this vague. Define:

• Primary: SOC/on-call security
• Secondary: system/service owner group
• Escalation: incident commander or IR lead
• Optional: compliance/GRC for reportability workflows

Use roles/groups, not a named person. Map to distribution lists, on-call rotations, or ITSM assignment groups.

Output: “SI-7(2) Notification Recipients” section in your control procedure and your on-call/contact register. ¹

Step 4 — Implement automated detection + notification plumbing

Patterns that usually pass assessment:

Pattern A: Tool-native alerting

• Configure FIM/EDR/config management tooling to send alerts directly to an on-call system (paging), email distribution list, or ticketing integration.
• Ensure alerts include: affected asset, object, expected vs. observed, timestamp, and tool evidence link.

Pattern B: SIEM/SOAR mediated

• Forward integrity events to SIEM.
• Apply correlation and severity rules.
• Trigger SOAR playbooks or ITSM ticket creation.
• Notify recipients via paging/chat/email based on severity.

Controls focus: the notification must be automated and tied to integrity verification discrepancies. ¹

Step 5 — Tie notifications to incident handling (don’t stop at alerting)

Build a short response playbook:

• Triage steps (verify if change is authorized; check change tickets/releases)
• Containment steps (isolate host, roll back artifact, block hash)
• Forensic preservation steps (collect relevant logs and file hashes)
• Closure criteria (restored known-good state; root cause recorded)

Make the playbook reference where the alert shows up (ticket queue, SIEM rule name, SOAR case type).

Step 6 — Test the control end-to-end and retain proof

Run a controlled test in a non-production environment (or a maintenance window) that generates a known integrity discrepancy:

• Modify a monitored file or configuration item.
• Validate the tool detects the change.
• Confirm notification is sent to the defined recipients.
• Confirm a ticket/case is created and closed with notes.

Output: test record + screenshot/export of alert + ticket evidence.

Step 7 — Operationalize recurring evidence collection

Decide how you will show ongoing operation without scrambling during audits:

• Monthly export of integrity alerts summary (even if “zero events”)
• Quarterly rule review (notification recipients and routing still correct)
• Change management linkage checks (authorized changes don’t create noisy alerts, or are handled with documented suppression rules)

Daydream can help here by mapping SI-7(2) to a control owner, a repeatable procedure, and a recurring evidence checklist so you collect the same artifacts each cycle instead of reinventing them. ¹

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Auditors typically need evidence of design and operation. Build an evidence packet that includes:

Design evidence (what you intended to do)

• SI-7(2) control narrative (how integrity verification is performed and how notifications are generated) ²
• Defined notification recipients (roles/groups) and escalation path ¹
• Alerting matrix or runbook excerpt (signals → severity → notify targets)
• System scope list (assets/services covered; exclusions with rationale)

Operating evidence (what actually happened)

• Configuration screenshots/exports: FIM/EDR policies, SIEM rules, SOAR workflow definitions
• Sample integrity violation alert(s) showing timestamp and recipient routing
• Corresponding ITSM/SOAR case/ticket with triage notes and closure
• Test results for end-to-end alert generation (especially if you have few real events)

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect these:

1. “Who is the organization-defined notification recipient?”
   They want roles/groups and evidence that the routing matches what you documented. ¹

2. “Show me an alert from the last period.”
   If you have none, show a test plus “zero events” reporting.

3. “Is notification automated or manual?”
   Manual email forwarding or “someone checks the dashboard” usually fails SI-7(2). ¹

4. “What integrity verification is in place?”
   SI-7(2) depends on integrity verification signals existing and being meaningful.

5. “How do you prevent alert fatigue?”
   Show tuning rules and change-management linkage without suppressing true integrity violations.

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

Mistake	Why it fails SI-7(2)	Fix
Alerts only exist in logs/SIEM, no notification	No evidence of “provide notification”	Add paging/email/chat/ITSM integration tied to integrity rules 1
“Recipients” are a person’s email	Breaks when staff change	Use role-based groups and on-call rotations
Integrity verification exists only in CI, not production	Leaves key assets uncovered	Scope by system criticality; document coverage and exclusions
Rules trigger constantly from authorized changes	Teams ignore alerts	Add authorized-change suppression tied to approved change records; tune monitored paths
No proof alerts are handled	Control looks paper-only	Require ticket creation and closure notes for integrity alerts

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for this requirement, so this page does not cite enforcement actions.

Risk-wise, integrity violations are a common precursor to security incidents: unauthorized changes can indicate malware, tampering, or control failures in change management. SI-7(2) reduces dwell time by ensuring the organization sees integrity discrepancies quickly through automated notification. ²

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

You asked for speed; this is a field-tested sequencing approach. Treat the “days” as phases, not calendar guarantees.

First 30 days (Immediate)

• Assign a control owner and backup; document RACI for security operations, IT operations, and service owners.
• Define the organization-defined notification recipients (primary, secondary, escalation). ¹
• Scope the systems/objects for integrity verification and document exclusions.
• Pick your notification path: tool-native vs SIEM/SOAR vs ITSM.
• Draft the alerting matrix and a one-page triage runbook.

Days 31–60 (Near-term build)

• Configure integrity verification sources (FIM/EDR/config drift/image signing checks) to emit events.
• Implement automated notifications to the defined recipients; validate routing works end-to-end. ¹
• Implement ticket creation for high-confidence integrity discrepancies.
• Tune for noise: exclude volatile paths, align with release windows, document suppression logic.

Days 61–90 (Operationalize and make it audit-ready)

• Run a controlled test and capture evidence (alert + notification + ticket).
• Set a recurring evidence pull (exports, screenshots, tickets).
• Add periodic recipient validation (group membership/on-call accuracy).
• Use Daydream to keep the SI-7(2) procedure, owner mapping, and recurring evidence artifacts in one place so audits become a packaging exercise, not a hunt. ¹

Frequently Asked Questions

What counts as an “integrity discrepancy” for SI-7(2)?

Any mismatch detected by your integrity verification process, such as unexpected file changes, signature failures, configuration drift, or artifact hash mismatches. Define the specific event types and thresholds you treat as discrepancies, then map them to notifications. ¹

Do notifications have to be real-time?

SI-7(2) requires automated notification upon discovery; it does not specify a time threshold in the provided text. Set internal expectations (on-call paging for critical assets, ticketing for lower severity) and document them. ¹

Can a SIEM dashboard count as “notification”?

Usually no for assessment purposes, because a dashboard is pull-based and may not notify anyone. Configure automated push notifications (paging/email/chat/ITSM) tied to integrity discrepancy events. ¹

What if we rarely see integrity violations, so we have no samples?

Run a controlled test that triggers an integrity discrepancy and retain the end-to-end evidence. Also retain periodic “zero findings” reports or exports that demonstrate the control is operating. ²

Should we notify the system owner or only the SOC?

Notify whoever must act. Most teams route to the SOC/on-call for triage and also notify the service owner group for context and remediation coordination; document the roles as your organization-defined recipients. ¹

How do we avoid alert fatigue while staying compliant?

Tighten the monitored scope to high-value objects, tune known-noisy paths, and connect suppression to approved changes. Keep a record of tuning decisions so you can explain why you did not silence true integrity violations. ²

Footnotes

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

2. NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5