AU-6(1): Automated Process Integration

AU-6(1): Automated Process Integration requires you to integrate audit record review, analysis, and reporting through defined automated mechanisms (for example, SIEM workflows, ticketing, and alerting) so audit logs flow into consistent detection and reporting outcomes. Operationalize it by mapping log sources to automated analytics and routing results to owners with tracked disposition and evidence. (NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 OSCAL JSON)

Key takeaways:

• Integration means end-to-end workflow: collect logs, analyze them, and automatically produce actionable reports or tickets with ownership.
• Your “automation” must be defined, repeatable, and evidenced (configs, rules, runbooks, and sample outputs).
• Auditors look for traceability: a finding in logs should map to alert logic, routing, triage, and a retained record of what happened next.

The au-6(1): automated process integration requirement is about making your audit review program run as an integrated system instead of a set of disconnected tasks. In practice, many teams can show logs exist and that someone “reviews them,” but they struggle to prove that review, analysis, and reporting are connected, automated where appropriate, and consistently produce outcomes (alerts, cases, reports) that the organization can act on.

For a CCO, GRC lead, or security compliance owner, the operational goal is straightforward: define which systems generate audit records, define the automated analysis you perform on those records, and define how results get reported to the right stakeholders with a durable record of disposition. The control becomes easy to defend when you can show a single workflow from log source → analytics/detections → reporting channel → ownership → closure evidence.

This page gives requirement-level guidance you can implement quickly: ownership, workflow design, minimum artifacts, common audit traps, and an execution plan you can run without waiting on a long tool migration.

Regulatory text

NIST AU-6(1) excerpt: “Integrate audit record review, analysis, and reporting processes using {{ insert: param, au-06.01_odp }}.” (NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 OSCAL JSON)

Operator interpretation: you must define and implement automated mechanisms that connect:

1. Review of audit records (how records are examined),
2. Analysis (how records are correlated, filtered, enriched, and assessed for security/compliance significance), and
3. Reporting (how results are delivered to decision-makers and responders),
   so the process works as an integrated pipeline rather than manual, ad hoc handoffs. (NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 OSCAL JSON)

“Using {{ insert: param, au-06.01_odp }}” is an organization-defined parameter in NIST’s control expression. Your job is to choose and document what automated integration means in your environment (for example: SIEM + SOAR playbooks; log analytics + ticketing; cloud-native monitoring + incident workflow) and then show it operates.

Plain-English meaning (what an assessor expects)

If an assessor asks, “How do you know someone looked at the logs and acted on the result?” AU-6(1) expects you to answer with an integrated workflow and proof.

A strong AU-6(1) implementation has these characteristics:

• Defined inputs: clear list of in-scope audit log sources and what “audit records” mean for your systems.
• Automated analysis: rules, detections, correlation searches, or analytic jobs that run without a person manually exporting and eyeballing logs.
• Automated reporting and routing: results go somewhere controlled (dashboards, scheduled reports, alert channels, ticket queues) with ownership and tracking.
• Closed-loop accountability: triage and disposition are recorded so “reporting” results in an action or an accepted decision.

Who it applies to

AU-6(1) is commonly applied in:

• Federal information systems and systems assessed against NIST SP 800-53 baselines. (NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5)
• Contractor systems handling federal data, including environments where you inherit NIST-aligned requirements from customer contracts and flow-down clauses. (NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5)

Operationally, it applies wherever you generate and rely on audit logs, including:

• Identity providers and IAM (authentication, privilege events)
• Endpoint and server platforms
• Network and security devices
• Cloud control planes and SaaS admin consoles
• Key business applications (especially those handling regulated data)

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

Step 1: Assign control ownership and define the integration boundary

• Name a control owner (often Security Operations, with GRC accountable for evidence).
• Define the scope boundary: which environments and log sources are “in” for AU-6(1) and which are out with rationale.
• Document your organization-defined parameter: the “automated integration mechanisms” you will use (SIEM, log platform, SOAR, ticketing, scheduled reporting). (NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 OSCAL JSON)

Deliverable: AU-6(1) control narrative + RACI.

Step 2: Build a log-to-outcome workflow map

Create a one-page workflow that shows:

• Sources → collection → normalization/enrichment → analytics → alert/report → routing → triage → closure This map becomes your audit “spine.” If a tool changes, the spine stays valid with updated evidence.

Deliverable: workflow diagram + data flow description.

Step 3: Implement automated analysis tied to defined use cases

Pick audit use cases that matter for your environment and implement them as automated analytics, for example:

• Privileged access events
• Changes to logging configuration
• Authentication anomalies
• Access to sensitive data stores
• Administrative actions in cloud consoles

For each use case, define:

• Detection logic location (SIEM rule, query, saved search, policy)
• Severity/priority mapping
• Expected output format (alert, case, report)

Deliverable: use case register with links/screenshots to rules/queries.

Step 4: Integrate reporting into an accountable work queue

“Reporting” is weakest when it means “someone can look at a dashboard.” Make it concrete:

• Route high-confidence alerts into ticketing/case management with an assigned owner and SLA expectations you set internally.
• Schedule recurring reports (weekly/monthly) for trend and governance review where real-time alerting is not appropriate.
• Maintain a consistent taxonomy (category, system, severity) so reporting is comparable over time.

Deliverable: routing rules + sample tickets/cases + scheduled report configuration.

Step 5: Make disposition auditable (close the loop)

For a sample of alerts/cases, retain:

• What triggered it (rule name, event ID, time window)
• Who received it and when
• What action was taken (containment, investigation, false positive rationale, accepted risk)
• Closure date and approver where appropriate

Deliverable: case records with timestamps and resolution notes.

Step 6: Operationalize recurring review of the automation itself

AU-6(1) fails quietly when integrations break (agent stopped, API token expired, log source removed). Add:

• Health checks for ingestion gaps
• Monitoring for rule execution failures
• Change control hooks when new systems are introduced

Deliverable: ingestion health dashboard screenshot + alert on ingestion failure.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Use this as your evidence checklist:

Evidence artifact	What it proves	Examples
AU-6(1) control narrative + owner	Accountability and defined approach	Control statement, RACI
System/log source inventory	Review scope and coverage	Log source list, data classification notes
Integration architecture/workflow	“Integrated” end-to-end design	Diagram + narrative
Analytic content inventory	Automated analysis exists	Rule list, saved searches, correlation logic
Reporting outputs	Reporting is real and repeatable	Scheduled reports, dashboards, alert channels
Ticket/case samples	Reporting routes to action	Redacted tickets with timestamps, assignment, closure
Ingestion health evidence	Integration reliability	Monitoring screenshot, alerts, runbook

The most persuasive evidence is a trace: one event → one analytic rule → one alert/report → one routed case → one documented disposition.

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

1. “Show me the integration.” Auditors will ask you to demonstrate the pipeline live or via screenshots. Be ready to walk through a single example end-to-end.
2. “What’s automated vs manual?” If your “integration” relies on analysts exporting CSVs and emailing findings, expect a gap. AU-6(1) calls for automated process integration. (NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 OSCAL JSON)
3. “How do you ensure reports lead to action?” They will look for ticketing/case evidence, not just dashboards.
4. “How do you know logs are complete?” Integration without ingestion quality controls creates blind spots.

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

• Mistake: Treating a SIEM deployment as automatic compliance. Fix: document which rules and reporting paths satisfy review/analysis/reporting, and prove routing and disposition.
• Mistake: Dashboards with no owners. Fix: define distribution lists, case queues, and named roles for triage and approvals.
• Mistake: Over-scoping. Fix: start with critical systems and expand; record scope decisions and rationale.
• Mistake: No evidence of operation. Fix: retain recurring artifacts (scheduled report outputs, alert samples, closed tickets) so you can prove the process ran.
• Mistake: Integration breaks during change. Fix: add log onboarding/offboarding steps to change management and monitor ingestion failures.

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for AU-6(1). (NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 OSCAL JSON)

Risk-wise, AU-6(1) gaps tend to surface as:

• Delayed detection and response because signals do not reach responders
• Inability to demonstrate monitoring effectiveness during assessments
• Control “paper compliance” where policies exist but operational telemetry is not connected to action

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

Use phases rather than day counts if your environment is complex; the milestones below assume you can prioritize access to logging platforms and ticketing.

First 30 days (Immediate)

• Assign AU-6(1) owner, backup, and GRC evidence steward.
• Publish the integration boundary: in-scope systems and log sources.
• Build the workflow map (source → analysis → reporting → disposition).
• Select a small set of high-value use cases and confirm you can generate an alert and route it to a queue.

Next 60 days (Near-term)

• Implement or refine automated analytics for selected use cases.
• Configure automated reporting: scheduled governance reports plus real-time alert routing where needed.
• Establish case/ticket templates that capture trigger, analysis, and disposition fields.
• Stand up ingestion health monitoring and a runbook for gaps.

By 90 days (Operationalize)

• Expand coverage to additional log sources and detections based on risk.
• Run an internal “audit trail test”: pick sample alerts and prove end-to-end traceability with retained evidence.
• Add AU-6(1) checks to change management: new systems must define audit logging, analytics, and reporting integration before go-live.
• If you use Daydream for compliance operations, map AU-6(1) to the control owner, procedure, and recurring evidence tasks so the evidence shows up on schedule and stays assessment-ready. (NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 OSCAL JSON)

Frequently Asked Questions

What counts as “automated process integration” for AU-6(1)?

Automation should connect review, analysis, and reporting without manual file-moving or ad hoc emails. A common pattern is log ingestion into a SIEM, automated analytics/detections, and automated routing into case management with tracked disposition. (NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 OSCAL JSON)

Do we need a SOAR platform to meet AU-6(1)?

No. You need defined automated mechanisms that integrate the steps. SIEM alerting into ticketing with scheduled reporting can satisfy the intent if it is documented and produces auditable outcomes. (NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 OSCAL JSON)

How do we prove “review” if analysis is automated?

Prove that outputs are reviewed and acted on: alert acknowledgments, case notes, closure codes, and governance report review records. Tie those records back to the analytic logic that produced the output.

What’s the minimum evidence set auditors typically accept?

A control narrative, a scoped log source list, screenshots/exports of detection and routing configuration, and a small sample of closed tickets showing traceability from log event to disposition.

We have dashboards, but no ticketing workflow. Is that enough?

Dashboards alone usually fail the “reporting leads to action” expectation. Add automated routing for defined conditions (alerts) and keep a record of who triaged and what decision was made.

How does this relate to third-party environments and managed services?

If a third party runs systems in scope, you still need integrated review/analysis/reporting outcomes. Contract for access to alerts, reports, and case evidence, and define who owns disposition on your side versus theirs.