Framework - ISO 27001 (Cyber)

Controls A.5.3 and A.5.4 in ISO 27001 focus on ensuring that human and managerial structures reinforce, rather than undermine, the security of information systems. A.5.3, Segregation of Duties, seeks to prevent any single individual from having unchecked authority over critical processes or assets. It introduces a system of checks and balances designed to minimize opportunities for fraud, error, or misuse. A.5.4, Management Responsibilities, complements this principle by assigning clear accountability to leaders who must enforce these controls within their teams. Together, these two controls operationalize the governance ideal that security is not only technical but also behavioral — relying on structured accountability, oversight, and transparency throughout the organization.

Implementing SoD effectively begins with understanding its core principles. Activities must be divided across multiple people or functions: one person initiates a process, another authorizes it, and a third executes or verifies completion. High-risk transactions require a “four-eyes” review, ensuring that at least two individuals independently validate the action. For extremely sensitive systems — such as encryption key management, code deployment pipelines, or financial approvals — dual control or two-person integrity may be mandated, requiring simultaneous authorization. Independent reconciliation processes, such as audit trails and exception reports, provide a final layer of assurance that completed transactions were legitimate. Each layer adds confidence that errors or malicious actions cannot pass unnoticed.

Designing SoD matrices formalizes these principles into an auditable framework. Roles, permissions, and key transactions must be mapped to show who can perform which actions and where potential conflicts exist. Incompatible duty combinations — for instance, the ability to both approve and reconcile payments — must be explicitly identified and blocked. Conditional exceptions may be documented for specific business contexts, but they must include risk justifications and approvals. Integrating this matrix into a Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) system allows SoD rules to be automatically enforced during user provisioning and access reviews. When properly maintained, SoD matrices become a living artifact that reflects real operational risk boundaries.

Maintaining segregation of duties requires tight integration with the access lifecycle process. As employees join, move, or leave the organization, their entitlements must be reassessed to maintain compliance with the SoD matrix. Access recertification cycles—typically quarterly or semiannual—validate that privileges remain appropriate and that no toxic combinations have slipped through. For emergency or break-glass access, time-limited and auditable mechanisms should be enforced, with immediate post-event review. All access events must be logged to provide evidence of compliance and to support retrospective investigations. When access and identity management processes are synchronized with SoD requirements, the organization ensures that governance keeps pace with personnel and operational changes.

Small teams or lean organizations often face the challenge of implementing SoD with limited staff. In such cases, compensating controls are essential. Rotational approval duties can distribute oversight responsibility among multiple team members over time. Independent retrospective reviews, even if delayed, can serve as an alternative to real-time separation. Automation can also help—systems can enforce approvals, prevent direct code commits to production, or require multi-party sign-offs. In certain cases, external oversight from an auditor, partner, or another department may be required to maintain independence. These approaches preserve the spirit of segregation even where perfect role separation is impractical.

Automation plays an increasingly vital role in sustaining SoD discipline. Modern workflow and orchestration tools can enforce approval chains, ensuring that no single actor can push changes or execute high-risk actions without review. In CI/CD environments, build and deployment gates can require different approvers for code merges and releases. Key management systems can enforce dual authorization for cryptographic operations. Ticketing systems can bind approvals and execution evidence within a single audit trail, ensuring accountability is documented at every step. Automation not only reduces human error but also ensures continuous compliance by embedding SoD logic directly into operational tooling.

Monitoring and oversight mechanisms are critical to ensure SoD remains effective over time. Detective controls include alerts on toxic privilege combinations, anomaly detection for self-approval events, and regular SoD violation reports to leadership. Sampling of sensitive transactions verifies adherence to established controls. Reporting frequency should match risk exposure — daily for critical infrastructure, quarterly for lower-risk domains. Leadership must act on these signals, not simply collect them. The goal is to maintain a cycle of detection, remediation, and reinforcement, ensuring the SoD framework remains relevant as roles, technologies, and threats evolve.

Despite its importance, SoD is one of the most frequently mishandled controls in both IT and business environments. Common pitfalls include undocumented exceptions that become permanent, group nesting in directory services that create indirect privilege paths, and “privilege creep” when employees change roles without access revocation. Outdated SoD matrices that no longer reflect operational realities can also undermine the control’s effectiveness. These weaknesses create blind spots where security incidents or fraud can occur undetected. Avoiding such pitfalls requires governance discipline: clear documentation, automation where possible, and recurring audits that validate both design and operation of SoD measures.

For more cyber related content and books, please check out cyber author dot me. Also, there are other prepcasts on Cybersecurity and more at Bare Metal Cyber dot com.

Control A.5.4 complements segregation of duties by defining the management responsibilities that make such structural safeguards effective in practice. Managers serve as the custodians of compliance within their areas of control. Their mandate is to ensure that all security responsibilities assigned to their teams are executed faithfully and that policies, including those on segregation of duties, are actively enforced. Beyond administration, managers must set the tone for security culture—modeling compliant behavior, addressing conflicts of interest, and ensuring that accountability is never ambiguous. They act as both facilitators and enforcers, allocating resources where controls need reinforcement and escalating risks when constraints prevent effective implementation.

To operationalize these expectations, management responsibilities must be embedded directly into job roles. Security accountability cannot live in documentation alone; it must be part of each manager’s daily function. Job descriptions should explicitly state the security duties associated with the role—such as authorizing access, approving exceptions, or reviewing incidents. Performance objectives and KPIs should reflect these obligations, tying managerial performance to security outcomes. Onboarding and training for new managers must include a thorough review of these responsibilities, ensuring awareness of both expectations and consequences for neglect. Periodic attestations reaffirm understanding and keep accountability visible over time, reinforcing the link between management performance and ISMS effectiveness.

Strong oversight mechanisms help supervisors maintain continuous control over how their teams execute ISMS requirements. This oversight includes reviewing and approving access requests, ensuring that SoD violations are caught before access is granted. Managers are also responsible for validating that staff have completed mandatory training and hold the necessary competence for their roles. They must confirm that incidents and near misses are promptly reported, properly investigated, and escalated when required. Regular sign-offs on exception logs and nonconformity reports keep leaders informed and engaged. By embedding structured oversight into routine management practices, organizations maintain a layer of defense that reinforces both operational discipline and cultural accountability.

When policy violations or SoD failures occur, managers play a key role in corrective action. Responses must be proportionate, balancing accountability with learning. For individual noncompliance, disciplinary procedures may apply under HR governance, but the manager must also initiate a root-cause review to determine whether systemic or process-level weaknesses contributed. For example, repeated SoD breaches might indicate role misalignment rather than intentional neglect. Managers must ensure incompatible privileges are revoked swiftly and compensating measures are applied until remediation is complete. Closure documentation should include an assessment of residual risk and a verification step confirming that corrective actions are sustainable. This structured response transforms violations into learning opportunities that strengthen the ISMS.

Auditors assessing compliance with A.5.3 and A.5.4 look for a broad range of evidence artifacts that prove both structural and operational enforcement. For A.5.3, these include the SoD matrix, documented “toxic combination” rules, and approvals for exceptions. Logs of access recertification, time-boxed break-glass activities, and violation reports confirm that segregation is actively monitored. For A.5.4, evidence includes manager attestations verifying that team responsibilities are being fulfilled, records of training completion, and reports demonstrating review of incidents and exceptions. Combined, these records show that management oversight is not assumed but verified—and that leaders maintain visibility into both the technical and human dimensions of control.

Real-world examples demonstrate how these principles play out across industries. In financial services, trade execution teams are separated from settlement and reconciliation functions to prevent self-approval of transactions. In healthcare, clinicians who update medical records cannot approve those changes for billing or compliance purposes, maintaining integrity of patient data. SaaS providers enforce segregation by ensuring that developers who commit code cannot directly deploy to production, reducing the risk of unverified changes. In manufacturing, staff issuing raw materials are distinct from those reconciling inventory balances, ensuring accuracy and fraud prevention. Each scenario reflects a common goal: distribute authority to reduce risk while maintaining operational efficiency.

Measuring the effectiveness of A.5.3 and A.5.4 controls provides essential insight into organizational health. Metrics may include the number and severity of SoD violations detected and resolved, the time taken to revoke incompatible access, and trends in exception volume and duration. Management performance can be evaluated through the rate of completed attestations, the timeliness of access approvals, and the quality of incident escalations. Audit findings tied to oversight failures help identify systemic improvement opportunities. By monitoring these indicators over time, organizations can detect cultural drift—where enforcement weakens—and recalibrate leadership engagement accordingly. Continuous measurement turns compliance from an audit event into an ongoing management responsibility.

Together, Controls A.5.3 and A.5.4 form a complementary framework of structural and managerial safeguards. A.5.3 designs the architecture of checks and balances—ensuring no one person holds too much control over sensitive processes. A.5.4 ensures that managers actively enforce those structures, maintain accountability, and intervene when deviations occur. When combined with automation, regular evidence collection, and meaningful metrics, these controls provide strong assurance that risk is not concentrated, oversight is effective, and human error or misuse is minimized. They create a culture where transparency and accountability are normalized, laying the governance foundation for the next organizational-level controls in A.5.5 and A.5.6, which deepen oversight into roles of authority and contact within the ISMS.