CM-1 policy and procedures: what the requirement asks for
An assessment or authorization is coming, and CM-1 is the first configuration management item on the list. In short, CM-1 requires a documented configuration management policy and the procedures that implement it, distributed to defined roles, owned by a designated official, and reviewed and updated at a frequency and after events the organization itself defines. The control does not ask for a particular configuration or tool. It asks that the rules behind baselines, change control and secure settings exist on paper, that the right people have them, and that someone is accountable for keeping them current.
Read the control as two linked documents. The *policy* states management's intent and the scope of configuration management across the system. The *procedures* describe how staff carry that intent out, such as who submits a change, who reviews it and where the approval is recorded. An assessor will check that the policy names a designated official, that the procedures exist for each area the policy covers, that both were distributed to the roles that need them, and that the review frequency and triggering events are written down and followed. CM-1 has no control enhancements in SP 800-53 Release 5.2.0, so the scope of the work is fixed by the base control. It applies to the low, moderate and high security control baselines and to the privacy baseline, so confirm which baseline your system is categorized under before drafting.
The policy is usually the easy part. Most organizations can produce a signed policy in a few weeks of drafting and review, and the assessment objectives for CM-1 lean on examining that document and interviewing the people who own configuration management. Gaps tend to appear in the procedures and the review record. Ask your team three questions: do the procedures match what engineers actually do in the change tool, does the last review date fall within the defined frequency, and can you show who reviewed the policy and what changed. Keep dated versions and approval records so the answers are provable. Your implementation partner can help build the procedures and review workflow, but the organization must own the policy, name the official and approve every version.
Which systems, teams and documents CM-1 covers
CM-1 is written once but applied to a boundary you define. The decisions below set which systems the policy governs, who receives it, and how components run by someone else fit in, and each one changes how much procedure work follows.
Defining the systems in scope
Start with the system boundary used in your authorization or assessment record, then decide whether the policy covers every system inside it or only those at a given impact level. The SP 800-53B low, moderate and high baselines all select CM-1, so the policy applies at whichever level your systems carry. Check that the scope statement names the platforms, environments and development pipelines the policy should reach, not only production servers.
One policy or several
Decide whether one organization-wide configuration management policy can serve several systems, with system-specific procedures underneath it, or whether each system needs its own policy. A single policy is easier to keep current, but it must still name the systems and the procedures that differ between them. Check that each procedure traces back to a policy statement so an assessor can follow the chain.
Roles that receive the policy
Name the roles that must receive and act on the policy, such as system owners, platform engineers, change approvers, security staff and the people who run the baseline build. CM-1 requires distribution to defined roles, so a policy sent only to the security team leaves the people who make changes without it. Confirm the distribution list against your organization chart and record how each role acknowledged receipt.
Owner and review authority
Assign one designated official who owns the policy and approves its procedures, and define who may request changes to them. CM-1 expects the policy to be managed by a named official, so ownership must sit with a person who has the authority to enforce it across teams. Confirm that the owner has the mandate to require compliance from platform and application teams, not only from the documentation function.
Inherited and provider-managed components
Decide how components run by a cloud provider, a managed service or a third-party supplier fit into the policy. Where the provider controls the configuration, your policy can require that you record the inherited settings, obtain the provider's documentation, and state which configuration duties remain yours. Check each provider agreement for what it says about configuration responsibility, because an assessor will ask who owns each setting.
Linking the policy to related documents
Map the CM-1 policy to the documents that carry the detailed work, including the baseline configuration, change control records, the component inventory and the security settings standard. CM-1 links to these artifacts through its procedures, so gaps appear where a procedure points to a document that does not exist or has not been reviewed. Keep a short register of these documents with their owners and review dates, and verify that each one is named in the policy.
How an assessor tests CM-1
This table sets out how an assessor applies the SP 800-53A procedure for CM-1, row by row across the examine and interview methods, the evidence each object produces and the findings that appear most often. Read it as a preparation checklist: each row is something the organization should be able to show before the assessment begins.
| Assessment element | What the assessor looks for | Evidence to prepare | Common finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Determination statements | SP 800-53A Rev. 5 assesses CM-1 with 17 determination statements, each checking that a part of the policy and procedure requirement exists, is documented and is maintained. | A statement-by-statement map from each determination statement to the document section, owner and date that addresses it. | Statements are answered in general terms without a traceable document reference. |
| Examine: policy and procedures | Whether the configuration management policy and the implementing procedures exist as documents, cover baselines, change control and secure settings, and name the roles responsible. | Current signed policy, procedures for baselines, change control and secure settings, and a list of defined roles. | Policy exists but procedures for baselines or change control are missing or only referenced by name. |
| Examine: assessment or audit findings | Prior assessment, audit and penetration test findings that touch configuration management, and whether the policy was updated in response. | Findings register with the configuration management items highlighted and records showing policy or procedure updates that followed them. | Recurring configuration findings are closed without any change to the policy or procedures. |
| Examine: documented security incidents or breaches | Whether incidents caused by configuration errors or unauthorized changes led to review of the policy and procedures. | Incident records with root cause notes and linked policy review actions. | Incident reports show configuration causes, but the policy is not reviewed afterward. |
| Examine: risk management strategy | Whether the configuration management policy aligns with the organization's risk management strategy and risk tolerance. | Risk management strategy document with a cross-reference to the configuration management policy. | Policy is written in isolation from the risk strategy and cites no shared risk decisions. |
| Interview: personnel with configuration management responsibilities | Whether named staff know the policy, can describe their duties under the procedures, and can say how they were informed of changes. | Interview schedule, role descriptions and a short record of who was briefed on the current version and when. | Staff describe practice from memory and cannot point to the procedure they follow. |
| Review and update dates | Whether the policy and procedures carry a defined review frequency, an owner and a date of last review, and whether reviews happened on schedule. | Document control history showing versions, approvers, review dates and the events that triggered reviews. | Review dates have lapsed, or the document shows no review after a significant system or organizational change. |
| Distribution | Whether the current version reached the defined roles and is available where those roles work. | Distribution list or acknowledgement records, and the location where staff access the current version. | Several versions circulate, and older copies remain in shared folders. |
Steps to write, approve and run the CM-1 policy set
This sequence turns CM-1 from a single document into a working policy set with a named owner, procedures that connect to the CM-2 through CM-14 control owners, recorded approval, acknowledged distribution and a scheduled review. Each step ends with an artifact an assessor can examine.
Confirm the designated official and the defined roles
Name the official who manages the configuration management policy and procedures, and list the roles that must receive them, such as system owners, change advisory members, platform engineers and security operations staff. CM-1 expects these roles to be defined by the organization, so write them down rather than inferring them from job titles. The output is a short ownership record signed off by senior management, stating who owns the policy, who implements the procedures and who is accountable for the review cycle.
Draft the policy scoped to the system boundary
Write the policy purpose, scope, roles, responsibilities, management commitment and compliance expectations, limiting the scope to the systems inside the authorization boundary and the components they depend on. Reference the organization-wide risk management strategy so the policy does not conflict with it. The output is a draft that names the systems, environments and component types it covers, which an assessor will compare against the system inventory.
Write procedures linked to the CM-2 through CM-14 owners
Write the implementing procedures and map each to the control that uses it: baseline configuration (CM-2), change control (CM-3), impact analysis (CM-4), access restrictions for change (CM-5), configuration settings (CM-6), least functionality (CM-7), component inventory (CM-8), the configuration management plan (CM-9) and the remaining controls. Assign a named owner to each procedure. The output is a cross-reference table showing every procedure, its owner and the control it supports, so gaps are visible before approval.
Obtain formal approval of the policy set
Route the policy and procedures to the designated official and the senior leaders who accept organizational risk, and record their approval with a version number and date. Check that the procedures match what teams actually do today, because an assessor will interview the people who run them. The output is an approved, versioned document set with recorded approvers and a change log showing what was revised during review.
Distribute to defined roles with acknowledgment
Publish the approved set in the repository or document system the defined roles use, and collect a recorded acknowledgment from each role that receives it. Keep the distribution list current as people move between roles. Confirm that staff can find the current version and that superseded versions are marked or removed. The output is a distribution record listing each role, each person acknowledging, and the version acknowledged.
Set the review frequency and triggering events
Define how often the policy and procedures are reviewed and updated, and list the events that force an earlier review, such as a significant architecture change, a material finding in an assessment, a new CM-related tool or a change in the authorization boundary. CM-1 requires these values to be defined by the organization. The output is a review schedule and trigger list inside the policy, approved with the document, so the review obligation is itself documented.
Run the first review and record the results
Carry out the first review against the schedule and the trigger list, checking the policy against current baselines, change records and the component inventory. Record what was reviewed, who reviewed it, what changed and why, and issue a new version if anything was updated. The output is a dated review record with reviewer names and a decision for each section, which becomes evidence that the policy is maintained rather than written once.
Who owns and uses the CM-1 documents
The policy owner is the official accountable for configuration management across the system. CM-1 requires a designated official to manage the policy and procedures, so this person must be named in the document itself, with authority to approve exceptions and to direct the teams that carry out baseline, change and settings work. Their need is a policy that states scope, roles, and the decisions they are expected to make, written at a level they can sign and defend.
- Named ownership: the policy identifies the designated official by role, and the owner can show when they last approved it.
- Defined review triggers: the owner knows the review frequency and the events, such as a significant system change or a finding, that force an update.
- Clear decision rights: the policy states who may approve deviations from baselines and who sits on the change control body.
- Distribution records: the owner can show which roles received the policy and procedures, and when.
When the documents are missing or stale, the owner cannot answer an assessor's basic question about who decides, and deviations get approved informally. Confirm with your own program who holds this role and where the approval record lives.
Engineers who build, operate and change the system use the procedures as the working instructions for baselines, change requests, secure settings and component records. They need steps they can follow without guessing: where the baseline is kept, how a change request moves through review, what evidence to attach, and which settings are required. The procedures should match the tools they actually use, so the engineer does not have to reconstruct the process from memory.
- Step-by-step procedures: each task, such as raising a change or updating a baseline, has ordered steps and named inputs.
- Current tool references: the procedure names the repository, ticket queue or wiki page where the work is recorded.
- Escalation paths: engineers know whom to contact for an exception or an urgent change.
- Version history: the team can see which procedure version applied on the date of a change.
When procedures are stale, engineers work around them, and changes reach production without the review the policy requires. Ask the owner to confirm that the procedures describe the current toolchain, not the one from the last audit.
The assessor tests CM-1 by examining the policy and procedures and interviewing the people with configuration management responsibilities. SP 800-53A lists assessment findings and the risk management strategy as examine objects, and personnel with configuration management responsibilities as interview objects. The assessor is independent of the organization and issues the finding, so the documents must be readable and provable without the author present.
- Traceable approval: the assessor checks that the policy shows an approval date and an approving official.
- Consistency with practice: the assessor samples recent changes and compares them with what the procedures say should happen.
- Review evidence: the assessor looks for dated review records that match the defined frequency and triggers.
- Interview alignment: staff describe the process the same way the document does.
When the documents are missing or stale, the assessor records a finding even if practice is sound, because the policy cannot show it was directed. Confirm the assessment objects and the expected evidence with your assessor before the sample is drawn.
Evidence that passes CM-1 and how to keep it current
An assessor testing CM-1 looks for a policy and procedures set that exists, has an owner, reached the people who run configuration work, and was reviewed when it should have been. The cards below cover the artifacts that prove each of those points and the habits that keep them accurate between assessments.
The approved policy record
Keep the configuration management policy as a single controlled document with a version number, an effective date, the named official who owns it, and a signed or recorded approval by the authority the organization designates. An assessor will ask whether the version in force is the one that was approved. Check that every copy in circulation carries the same version number. Superseded versions should stay retrievable with their approval records.
Implementing procedures
Procedures turn the policy into steps for baseline updates, change requests, secure settings and exceptions. Each procedure should name the role that performs it, the system or tool it uses, and the record it produces. Map each procedure back to the policy section it implements so an assessor can trace policy to practice without interviewing several teams.
Distribution and acknowledgment records
CM-1 expects the policy and procedures to reach the defined roles. Keep a distribution list tied to those roles, the date each version was published, and acknowledgment records from the people who hold configuration responsibilities. Confirm the acknowledgments cover new hires and role changes, since a list that was accurate at the last review often is not accurate at the next one.
Review log with triggers
The control requires review at a defined frequency and after defined events. Record each review with its date, the reviewer, the result (no change, minor update or major revision), and the trigger that prompted it, whether the calendar cycle or an event such as a significant incident, a platform migration or a revised SP 800-53 release. An empty log is the most common finding, so schedule the review before the assessment window opens.
Version history in a documentation system
A wiki or documentation platform with built-in version control can supply much of this record automatically. XWiki keeps every change to a page with what changed, when and by whom, and lets reviewers compare versions and roll back. BookStack assigns permissions by role at the shelf, book, chapter or page level, which supports limiting edit and approval rights to the policy owner. Confirm in your own deployment that the history and permission settings are enabled and exported in a form an auditor can read.
Links between procedures and enforcing tools
Assessors test whether the procedures describe what the tooling really does. For each procedure, record the configuration management tool, pipeline or access control that enforces it, and keep the tool's configuration export or change log with the procedure. A policy that requires approved baselines is weaker evidence than a policy plus a repository showing that baseline changes need a reviewed merge.
How the policy, procedures and change records fit together
CM-1 sits above the rest of the configuration management family. The policy states what the organization intends to achieve with baselines, change control, secure settings and component inventories, and the procedures name the process owners and the steps they follow to get there. Controls CM-2 through CM-14 are the operational work those procedures direct: building baselines (CM-2), approving changes (CM-3), analyzing impact (CM-4), restricting who can change the system (CM-5), setting secure configurations (CM-6), limiting functionality (CM-7) and keeping the component inventory (CM-8). An assessor who reads CM-1 first can then test whether each downstream control has a named owner and a procedure behind it.
The practical check is traceability. Pick one procedure from the CM-1 document set, such as the change procedure, and confirm that it names the change control body, the approval roles and the records the process produces. Then pull actual evidence from the systems: a current baseline version, a sample of change tickets with impact analysis and approval, and an inventory extract with its review date. Every link in that chain should point to a named role. If a policy references a procedure that nobody owns, or a procedure refers to a ticket template that does not exist, the gap will surface during assessment, so reconcile the three layers before the assessor asks. Confirm the defined review frequency and the triggering events in your own policy, since those values belong to your organization and not to this page.
CM-1 also has relationships outside the CM family. The SP 800-53 Rev. 5 catalog names PM-9, SA-8 and SI-12 as related controls, which connect configuration policy to the organization-wide risk management strategy, to engineering principles and to information management and retention. It also names PS-8 for personnel sanctions, which matters when configuration rules are enforced through disciplinary channels. Review these related controls when you write or revise the CM-1 documents, so the configuration policy does not contradict the risk strategy, engineering standards or personnel rules that the assessor will read alongside it. Ownership of the policy should sit with an official who can resolve those conflicts. The current catalog revision is available in the NIST CPRT catalog for SP 800-53 Release 5.2.0.
What CM-1 costs in money and effort
This table breaks down the cost components of meeting CM-1 Policy and procedures, showing who is paid for each, whether it is one-time or recurring, and what pushes it up or down. Use it to build a quote request, since no price or duration for CM-1 is supplied for this page and the actual figures depend on your scope and environment.
| Cost component | Who is paid or who spends time | One-time or recurring | What drives it up or down |
|---|---|---|---|
| Internal drafting of the CM policy and procedures | Configuration management lead, system owners, security staff | One-time, then recurring with updates | Number of systems in scope, how many procedures exist already, and how many teams must agree on roles |
| Approval and sign-off | Designated official, governance or change body members | One-time per version | How many approvers the organization requires and whether approval follows an existing policy workflow |
| Legal or policy review, where applicable | Counsel or policy office, if the organization requires it | One-time per version, sometimes recurring | Contractual or regulatory obligations that the policy must mirror, and whether templates already exist |
| Documentation tooling | Software vendor or self-hosted platform operator | Recurring license or hosting spend, or one-time setup for self-hosted tools | Choice of platform. Self-hosted open-source wiki tools can remove license spend, but hosting, backup and access management still cost effort |
| Distribution and acknowledgment tracking | Platform or HR staff who track who has read the policy | Recurring | Headcount of the defined roles, and whether acknowledgments are captured automatically or by hand |
| Periodic review and update | Policy owner and reviewers, triggered by the defined frequency and defined events | Recurring | How often the organization sets the review cycle, how often systems change, and how many events trigger an early review |
| Assessor sampling of policy and procedure documents | Internal staff who assemble evidence, plus the independent assessor's fees | Recurring at each assessment cycle | Number of versions and review records the assessor samples, and how easily the history can be produced |
| Outside implementation help | Implementation partner for drafting, tooling setup or evidence preparation, under a written scope | One-time, with optional retainer for upkeep | Whether the organization has an existing policy set to adapt or must write from scratch. Ask for the scope and deliverables in writing before work starts |
Your team, a partner and the auditor for CM-1
Your organization owns CM-1. The configuration management policy and its implementing procedures must come from people who are accountable for the system, and a designated official must be named to manage them. Your team decides the scope of the policy, the roles it binds, and the review frequency and triggering events you will commit to. Those decisions are not delegated to a partner, because the policy is only meaningful if the people it governs have accepted it.
- Policy owner: Name the official who manages the policy and procedures and who signs approval.
- Scope and roles: Decide which systems, change boards and technical teams the policy covers.
- Review cadence: Set the review frequency and the events that force an update, such as a major architecture change.
- Distribution: Confirm how the policy reaches each defined role and how acknowledgment is recorded.
- Operational ownership: Run the recurring reviews and keep the approval record current.
Confirm with your assessor which review frequency and triggering events they expect to see defined in your own documents.
An implementation partner can help turn your decisions into usable documents and a working evidence system. DeployOpen prepares systems, controls and evidence for assessment, but it does not write the policy as the organization's binding document, and it does not approve it. Drafting, configuration of the documentation platform and assembly of the evidence folder are the parts that usually benefit from outside hands, and they are fixed in a written scope before work starts.
- Procedure drafts: Prepare implementing procedures for your review, based on your decisions about scope and roles.
- Documentation system: Set up a self-hosted wiki or documentation platform with version history, so every change records what changed, when and by whom.
- Role-based access: Configure permissions so only the policy owner and designated approvers can edit controlled documents.
- Evidence folder: Assemble approval records, review logs and distribution records in a structure the assessor can navigate.
- Handover: Document how the system is operated so your team can run it after the engagement ends.
Check that the partner's written scope lists these deliverables and states clearly that the partner prepares evidence without issuing any assessment result.
An independent auditor, assessor or certification body tests CM-1 and issues findings or reports. The assessor uses the determination statements and the examine and interview methods in SP 800-53A to decide whether the policy and procedures meet the control. Their role is independent of both your team and the partner, which is why they, and not a partner, produce any assessment result.
- Document examination: The assessor reads the policy, procedures and version history to check content and currency.
- Interviews: The assessor asks personnel with configuration management responsibilities whether they know and follow the procedures.
- Evidence sampling: The assessor checks approval, review and distribution records against the defined frequency.
- Findings: The assessor records findings and any open items, which feed your plan of action and milestones.
- Independence: The assessor is selected and engaged by your organization, and its conclusions are its own.
Before engaging an assessor, ask them to confirm which assessment objects and methods they will apply to CM-1 in your environment.
Where CM-1 usually fails and how to close it
CM-1 is rarely missing outright. It usually exists as a document that no one owns, no one reads, or no one has updated since the last release or incident. The cards below pair each common gap with the fix an assessor would expect to see in place.
Policy with no named official
A policy that names a department but no individual leaves the assessor with no one to interview about configuration management decisions. CM-1 expects a designated official to manage the policy and procedures. Name one person, record the appointment in writing, and confirm that person can answer the interview questions for each procedure without deferring to a team alias.
Procedures that do not match practice
Procedures often describe an ideal change process while engineers follow a faster, informal one. An assessor will compare the written procedure with change tickets, baseline records and build logs. Walk through three recent changes and confirm each step in the procedure appears in the records. Where practice differs, either change the practice or revise the procedure and record the reason.
No distribution or acknowledgment record
A policy saved to a shared drive does not show that the defined roles received it. Keep a distribution list tied to the roles CM-1 names, send the current version, and capture each acknowledgment with a date. Store the acknowledgments with the policy so the assessor can trace which version each role read and when.
Review dates missed
CM-1 requires review and update at a frequency the organization defines and after defined events. A review that slips past its own date is an easy finding to write up. Put the review interval and the event triggers in the document itself, add the next review date to a calendar owned by the designated official, and keep a dated record of each review, including reviews that found no changes.
Policy not updated after a release or incident
Event-driven updates are the gap most often missed. NIST's Release 5.2.0 of 27 August 2025 updated the related controls of every -1 policy and procedures control, which is a concrete reason to check whether your CM-1 text still reflects current control language. Likewise, a configuration-related incident should trigger a review. Tie both triggers to a checklist so the official reviews the policy each time one occurs.
Documents scattered across tools
When the policy sits in one wiki, the procedures in a ticket system and the approvals in email, the assessor cannot see a single controlled set. Choose one system of record for CM-1 documents, keep version history there, and link from it to the change and baseline records. Self-hosted wikis such as XWiki keep a version history of each page, which supports showing what changed, when and by whom.
CM-1 questions buyers ask before hiring help
How much effort does a CM-1 policy set take to write?
The effort depends less on the writing than on the decisions behind it. CM-1 asks for a documented configuration management policy and implementing procedures, so the organization must first agree on which systems fall in scope, who approves changes, who owns the baselines and how often the documents are reviewed. Those decisions take time in meetings with system owners, change managers and the compliance lead. The written policy is usually the shorter part. Procedures for baselines, change control and secure settings are longer because they describe steps people actually follow. Ask any provider to break its estimate into decision workshops, drafting, review cycles and approvals, and to state which of those steps the organization must staff. No fixed figure is supplied for this, so confirm the expected effort against your own environment and the number of systems in scope.
Can we write our own CM-1 policy in-house?
Yes, an organization can write its own CM-1 policy and procedures, and NIST's control does not require an outside author. The organization owns its controls, so the policy must reflect how the organization really operates. The practical test is whether the people named as owners can explain and defend the document during an assessment. In-house teams usually struggle with three things: keeping the policy aligned with the baseline and change control procedures that sit beside it, getting a designated official to sign off, and scheduling reviews after defined events such as major system changes. An implementation partner can draft or review the set, but the organization still approves and maintains it. Confirm with your assessor which format and approval record they expect before you decide who writes what.
What does a CM-1 project need from the compliance lead and engineers?
The compliance lead needs to own the policy's structure, the list of roles it names and the review schedule. Engineers need to describe how systems are actually built, changed and recorded. In practice the work divides into a few parts:
- The compliance lead confirms scope, defines the designated official, sets the review frequency and collects approvals.
- Platform and infrastructure engineers describe baseline builds, deployment pipelines and where configuration files live.
- Change managers explain who approves changes today and where those approvals are recorded.
- Security staff confirm how secure settings are reviewed and how deviations are handled.
If these people are not available, the policy will describe a process nobody runs. Agree these time commitments in writing before work starts, since they are the largest internal cost of the project.
How long does CM-1 policy work take?
The duration depends on scope, meaning how many systems, business units and existing documents the policy must cover, and on how quickly decisions are made by the owners named in the policy. No fixed timeline is supplied for CM-1 work, so this page does not give one. A narrow scope with existing change procedures and clear owners moves faster than a multi-system environment where configuration practice differs between teams. Ask any provider for a timeline tied to a written scope, with the dates on which the organization must supply decisions, interviews and sign-offs. Fixed-scope engagements usually agree these dates before work starts, which makes delays visible early.
Can a partner write our CM-1 policy for us?
A partner can prepare the policy and procedures, but the organization must own them. DeployOpen prepares systems, controls and evidence for compliance assessments and does not issue audit reports or certifications. Under a fixed-scope engagement, a partner may draft the policy, align it with existing configuration management records, propose the designated official and roles, and set a review cycle that the organization adopts. Ask the partner to show which parts are drafted by its staff, which are reviewed by your team, and who signs the final version. Be cautious with any provider that offers to certify the policy, because only an independent assessor can state that controls meet the standard.
What will the assessor sample for CM-1?
The assessor will check that the policy and procedures exist, are distributed to the defined roles, are managed by a named official and are reviewed on schedule. NIST's assessment procedure for CM-1 uses determination statements with examine and interview methods. Examine objects include the policy and procedures, along with assessment or audit findings, documentation of security incidents or breaches and the risk management strategy. Interview objects include personnel with configuration management responsibilities. In practice the assessor will ask for the current document, its version history and approval record, proof of distribution, the last review date, and whether staff can describe the process consistently. Keep these records in a system that shows what changed, when and by whom. Confirm the exact sample size and evidence format with your assessor, since those are set by their engagement, not by NIST.
How DeployOpen prepares CM-1 evidence
DeployOpen plans, implements and documents self-hosted open-source platforms inside your own infrastructure, and prepares the configuration management policy and procedures that CM-1 asks for. We prepare the documents and evidence; your organization owns the policy, and an independent assessor decides whether CM-1 is met.
How we scope
- Agree in writing which systems, teams and configuration processes the CM-1 policy and procedures will cover
- Confirm the named official who manages the policy and the roles that receive it
- Record the review frequency and triggering events your organization sets for updates
- Define which baseline, change control and secure settings procedures the policy must reference
How we build
- Draft the configuration management policy and procedures from your existing standards and tooling
- Map each procedure to the systems and open-source tools that will generate its evidence
- Set up version-controlled storage so every revision records what changed, when and by whom
- Test that role-based access lets only the intended people edit and approve the documents
How we hand over
- Deliver the approved policy, procedures, distribution record and review schedule as documented artifacts
- Provide an evidence index showing where each CM-1 artifact is stored and who maintains it
- Walk the named owners and assessment-facing staff through the documents and their review steps
- Document any gaps your organization must close before an independent assessment begins
How we support
- Offer ongoing support for policy updates after reviews or significant system changes as a retainer
- Keep the evidence index current as tooling, roles and systems change over time
- Coordinate with your independent assessor on requests for CM-1 documentation, without issuing any assessment result ourselves
