Information technology security assessment is a planned evaluation of security controls to determine whether they are implemented correctly, operating as intended, and where weaknesses exist.[1]
Information technology security assessment is a planned evaluation of security controls to determine whether they are implemented correctly, operating as intended, and where weaknesses exist.[1]
Common practice organizes the work into three methods: examination of documents and configurations, interviews with personnel, and testing under defined conditions.[1]
Assessment results support judgments about control effectiveness, validate and prioritize technical findings, and plan fixes with later verification or retest.[1]
Security assessment is distinct from a risk assessment—which expresses risk in terms of likelihood and impact—and from an audit.[2]
Scope and terminology
Security assessment refers to a planned evaluation of security controls to check whether they are implemented correctly, operating as intended, and where weaknesses exist.[1]
Common practice organizes assessment work into three methods: examination of documents and configurations, interviews with personnel, and testing under defined conditions.[1]
A risk assessment is treated separately: risk is commonly expressed in terms of likelihood and impact, and the process identifies, estimates, and prioritizes risks for decisions .[2][3]
An audit is also distinct: it is a systematic and independent evaluation of conformance in a management-system context; organizations may apply audits within an ISMS while using assessments to examine technical control effectiveness.[4][5]
Methodology
Planning
Planning typically defines scope and objectives, sets rules of engagement, confirms legal and ethical constraints, and prepares accounts and environments.[1]
Good practice also records authorization, data-handling limits, and communications before testing begins.[6]
When software development is in scope, activities can align with secure development practices so findings map to the lifecycle.[7]
Execution
Execution combines examination, interviewing, and testing to gather evidence about control effectiveness.[1]
For web and application targets, typical coverage includes input validation, authentication and session management, and configuration.[8]
Public risk taxonomies such as the OWASP Top 10 provide a shared vocabulary for common weaknesses without naming vendors or tools.[9]
API-focused assessments often reference the API Security Top 10 to address issues specific to service interfaces.[10]
Verification mindset
Many teams verify implementations against requirement sets and assurance levels rather than following a tool-specific procedure.[11]
In regulated or contractual contexts, criteria may come from a control baseline or catalogue (for example, protecting controlled unclassified information).[12][13]
Transition to reporting
Assessment plans and evidence records support reproducibility by tracing each finding to the method used.[14]
Results normally include prioritized remediation and a plan for later verification or retest.[1]
Reporting
A typical assessment report states the scope and objectives, explains the methods used, and presents evidence-backed findings; where appropriate it also notes potential impact and likelihood, recommends fixes with priorities, and defines a plan for verification or retest.[1]
To support reproducibility, assessment plans and evidence records allow reviewers to trace each finding to the technique and assessment objects that produced it.[14]
Findings are often mapped to a recognized control catalogue or practice guide so owners know exactly what to change—for example, NIST SP 800-53 or ISO/IEC 27002.[12][13]
Risk and measurement
In practice, many organizations communicate results with qualitative or semi-quantitative scoring; this aligns with general risk-management guidance and information-security usage.[15][2]
Quantitative analysis is also possible when a model and data are defined; Open FAIR is one widely cited approach for expressing frequency and loss.[16]
ISO/IEC 27005 connects these ideas to information-security risk management and helps keep terminology consistent within an ISMS context.[3]
Tools (types rather than vendors)
Articles typically describe tool types—for example, vulnerability scanners, software-composition analysis, dynamic/interactive application testing, configuration checking, and evidence/issue tracking—rather than specific products.[8][17]
Using a control/practice lens keeps the description neutral and durable because results can be mapped to established catalogues such as ISO/IEC 27002 and NIST SP 800-53.[13][12]
Relation to RMF / Continuous monitoring
Assessments sit within the NIST Risk Management Framework alongside control selection, implementation, authorization, and continuous monitoring; they are not a one-time event.[18]
Continuous monitoring uses assessment activities and other data over time, feeding results back into risk and control decisions at the organization, mission, and system levels.[19][20]
In many programs this work is coordinated through an ISMS, which provides requirements and governance for recurring assessments and audits.[5]
123Joint Task Force Transformation Initiative (2012-09-17). Guide for Conducting Risk Assessments (Report). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.