Criminal justice agencies and their vendors
How Identity and Access Management Supports the CJIS Security Policy
This page maps identity-relevant requirements in the CJIS Security Policy, Version 6.1, dated June 25, 2026. It covers the Access Control, Identification and Authentication, Audit and Accountability, and Personnel Security families, plus section 5.20.7.2 on mobile devices. Requirement text is quoted verbatim, and omitted text is marked in brackets.
Section 1.5 of the policy states that version 6.0 and later is a publicly available document. The mappings to NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 are GCA judgment, because the policy does not state which revision it aligns to and cites Revision 4 in its appendices. The relevance classifications and descriptions are GCA practice opinion.
Audit status is shown as of October 16, 2026. Under Section 1.4, requirements that existed before modernization and Priority 1 requirements have been sanctionable since October 1, 2024. Priority 2, 3 and 4 modernized requirements are in zero-cycle status from October 1, 2024 through September 30, 2027. Confirm local audit baselines with the agency that administers CJI access in your jurisdiction.
Search note: the phrase advanced authentication appears in this matrix as the title of section 5.20.7.2, which covers CJI access from authorized mobile devices. The general multifactor requirements are IA-2(1) for privileged accounts and IA-2(2) for non-privileged accounts.
For CIOs and compliance leaders
- IA-2(1) and IA-2(2) require multifactor authentication for privileged and non-privileged accounts. Both are sanctionable as of October 16, 2026.
- AC-2 account management and AC-6 least privilege are sanctionable as of the same date. IA-8, IA-11, IA-12, AU-12 and PS-4 are zero-cycle.
- PS-4 requires disabling system access within twenty-four (24) hours of termination. Build that window into your offboarding evidence.
Reference material, not a compliance determination. This matrix reflects GCA's practice view as of . It does not certify, warrant or predict the outcome of any assessment, audit or examination. The CJIS Security Policy, Version 6.1, controls. Read the full notice.
The matrix
- Primary
- Supporting
- Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Showing 46 of 46 requirements
| Requirement | Requirement text | Priority marking / Audit and sanction status | Identity relevance (GCA classification) | GCA approach | Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities | Evidence commonly examined |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AC-2 AC: Access Control | Account Management a. Define and document the types of accounts allowed and specifically prohibited for use within the system; b. Assign account managers; c. Require conditions for group and role membership; d. Specify: 1. Authorized users of the system; 2. Group and role membership; and 3. Access authorizations (i.e., privileges) and attributes listed for each account; [attribute table omitted] e. Require approvals by organizational personnel with account management responsibilities for requests to create accounts; f. Create, enable, modify, disable, and remove accounts in accordance with agency policy; g. Monitor the use of accounts; h. Notify account managers and system/network administrators within: 1. One day when accounts are no longer required; 2. One day when users are terminated or transferred; and 3. One day when system usage or need-to-know changes for an individual; i. Authorize access to the system based on: 1. A valid access authorization; 2. Intended system usage; and 3. Attributes as listed in AC-2(d)(3); j. Review accounts for compliance with account management requirements at least annually; k. Establish and implement a process for changing shared or group account authenticators (if deployed) when individuals are removed from the group; and l. Align account management processes with personnel termination and transfer processes. In practice: Each account type is defined and owned, group and role requests go through an approval workflow, and staff access is reviewed at least once a year. The identity platform automates the account lifecycle in between. |
|
Primary |
Identity governance work commonly contributes here: account types and approvals, group and role membership, automated lifecycle and the annual account review. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-2(1) AC: Access Control | Account Management | Automated System Account Management Support the management of system accounts using automated mechanisms including email, phone, and text notifications. In practice: Joiner, mover and leaver events trigger account changes automatically, and email, phone or text notices go to the account owner and the security team when an account changes. |
|
Primary |
Automated provisioning and notification workflows commonly contribute to automated account management. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-2(2) AC: Access Control | Account Management | Automated Temporary and Emergency Account Management Automatically remove temporary and emergency accounts within 72 hours. In practice: A temporary or emergency account is created with an expiry, and the platform removes it within 72 hours, so a short-term fix does not turn into a standing account. |
|
Primary |
Time-boxed access and expiry-driven removal for temporary and emergency accounts commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-2(3) AC: Access Control | Account Management | Disable Accounts Disable accounts within one (1) week when the accounts: a. Have expired; b. Are no longer associated with a user or individual; c. Are in violation of organizational policy; or d. Have been inactive for 90 calendar days. In practice: A routine report lists expired, orphaned and 90-day inactive accounts, and the help desk disables each one within a week of it showing up on the list. |
|
Primary |
Dormant-account detection, orphan correlation and disable workflows commonly contribute to the disable conditions listed. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-2(4) AC: Access Control | Account Management | Automated Audit Actions Automatically audit account creation, modification, enabling, disabling, and removal actions. In practice: Account creation, changes, disabling and removal are logged automatically, so an analyst can trace any change on an account without asking an administrator. |
|
Primary |
Identity platform audit logging of account lifecycle events commonly contributes here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-2(13) AC: Access Control | Account Management | Disable Accounts for High-Risk Individuals Disable accounts of individuals within 30 minutes of discovery of direct threats to the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of CJI. In practice: When the security team finds a direct threat to criminal justice information, a runbook lets the help desk disable the person's accounts within 30 minutes through the identity platform. |
|
Primary |
Rapid-disable runbooks tied to identity threat detection commonly contribute to the 30-minute disable requirement. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-3 AC: Access Control | Access Enforcement Enforce approved authorizations for logical access to information and system resources in accordance with applicable access control policies. In practice: People receive access to criminal justice systems through roles that were requested and signed off. The sign-in service refuses applications the person is not assigned to, and each application enforces the role inside it. |
|
Primary |
Role and entitlement models and policy-based access decisions commonly contribute to enforcing approved authorizations. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-5 AC: Access Control | Separation of Duties a. Identify and document separation of duties based on specific duties, operations, or information systems, as necessary, to mitigate risk to CJI; and b. Define system access authorizations to support separation of duties. In practice: Request rules keep one person from holding conflicting duties, and a report lists any overlaps so a manager can correct them before they cause risk to criminal justice information. |
|
Primary |
Separation-of-duties policy design and violation reporting commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-6 AC: Access Control | Least Privilege Employ the principle of least privilege, allowing only authorized accesses for users (or processes acting on behalf of users) that are necessary to accomplish assigned organizational tasks. In practice: Staff get roles that match their work, and managers confirm those roles are still needed. Administrator rights are granted only when required, and shared administrator credentials are checked out from a privileged access vault. |
|
Primary |
Role design, access review and privileged access controls commonly contribute to least privilege. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-6(1) AC: Access Control | Least Privilege | Authorize Access to Security Functions Authorize access for personnel including security administrators, system and network administrators, and other privileged users with access to system control, monitoring, or administration functions (e.g., system administrators, information security personnel, maintainers, system programmers, etc.) to: a. Established system accounts, configured access authorizations (i.e., permissions, privileges), set events to be audited, set intrusion detection parameters, and other security functions; and b. Security-relevant information in hardware, software, and firmware. In practice: Access for administrators of security and network tools is its own role, granted only after a documented request and sign-off, and removed when the duty ends. |
|
Primary |
Privileged role definition and approval-gated elevation commonly contribute to controlling access to security functions. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-6(2) AC: Access Control | Least Privilege | Non-Privileged Access for Nonsecurity Functions Require that users of system accounts (or roles) with access to privileged security functions or security-relevant information (e.g., audit logs), use non-privileged accounts or roles, when accessing non-security functions. In practice: People who administer security tools use a separate everyday account for email and ordinary work, so a mistake in the everyday account does not expose administrator rights. |
|
Primary |
Separate administrative and everyday accounts commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-6(5) AC: Access Control | Least Privilege | Privileged Accounts Restrict privileged accounts on the system to privileged users. In practice: A privileged account inventory lists each account with a named holder, and only people with an authorized administrator role can have one. Extras get removed. |
|
Primary |
Privileged account inventory and restriction to named privileged users commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-6(7) AC: Access Control | Least Privilege | Review of User Privileges a. Review annually the privileges assigned to non-privileged and privileged users to validate the need for such privileges; and b. Reassign or remove privileges, if necessary, to correctly reflect organizational mission and business needs. In practice: Each year, managers and system owners confirm whether each person's regular and privileged access is still needed. Removals are carried out and the decisions are saved in a campaign record. |
|
Primary |
Privileged and non-privileged access review campaigns with recorded decisions commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-6(9) AC: Access Control | Least Privilege | Log Use of Privileged Functions Log the execution of privileged functions. In practice: Privileged sessions are recorded or logged, showing who ran administrator functions, on which system and at what time, so the security team can review that history. |
|
Primary
Why this classificationCapture of privileged function use is delivered by the privileged access tooling that identity teams run. Alerting, retention and review sit with security operations and are supporting rows in this series. |
Privileged session and activity logging commonly contributes to logging the execution of privileged functions. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-7 AC: Access Control | Unsuccessful Logon Attempts a. Enforce a limit of five (5) consecutive invalid logon attempts by a user during a 15-minute time period; and b. Automatically lock the account or node until released by an administrator when the maximum number of unsuccessful attempts is exceeded. In practice: The directory locks an account after five failed sign-ins in 15 minutes and keeps it locked until an administrator releases it, usually after the help desk verifies the caller. |
|
Primary |
Directory and identity provider lockout settings commonly contribute here. Where cloud identity provider lockout is time-based, the directory that supports administrator release commonly contributes to that requirement, and the gap is documented. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-17 AC: Access Control | Remote Access a. Establish and document usage restrictions, configuration/connection requirements, and implementation guidance for each type of remote access allowed; and b. Authorize each type of remote access to the system prior to allowing such connections. In practice: Each type of remote access is written down and authorized before use. The sign-in service applies those rules and requires MFA for remote sign-ins. |
|
Primary |
Policy-based remote access decisions with MFA commonly contribute to authorizing each type of remote access. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-2 IA: Identification and Authentication | Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) Uniquely identify and authenticate organizational users and associate that unique identification with processes acting on behalf of those users. In practice: Each employee signs in with their own named account through a single sign-on service, so every action in an application can be traced to one person. |
|
Primary |
A central identity provider with unique user identities and single sign-on commonly contributes here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-2(1) IA: Identification and Authentication | Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) | Multi-Factor Authentication to Privileged Accounts Implement multi-factor authentication for access to privileged accounts. In practice: Administrators and other privileged users add a second sign-in step, like a security key or authenticator prompt, each time they open a privileged account. |
|
Primary |
Multi-factor authentication for administrators and other privileged accounts commonly contributes here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-2(2) IA: Identification and Authentication | Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) | Multi-Factor Authentication to Non-Privileged Accounts Implement multi-factor authentication for access to non-privileged accounts. In practice: Ordinary users also get a second sign-in step, such as a phone prompt, when they reach systems with criminal justice information. The identity team enrolls users and keeps the rule turned on. |
|
Primary |
Multi-factor authentication for non-privileged accounts commonly contributes here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-2(8) IA: Identification and Authentication | Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) | Access to Accounts, Replay Resistant Implement replay-resistant authentication mechanisms for access to privileged and non-privileged accounts. In practice: Sign-in uses replay-resistant methods, such as one-time passcodes or, more strongly, hardware keys and other phishing-resistant authenticators, for both administrators and regular users. |
|
Primary |
Replay-resistant sign-in methods, including phishing-resistant authenticators, commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-4 IA: Identification and Authentication | Identifier Management Manage system identifiers by: a. Receiving authorization from organizational personnel with identifier management responsibilities to assign an individual, group, role, service, or device identifier; b. Selecting an identifier that identifies an individual, group, role, service, or device; c. Assigning the identifier to the intended individual, group, role, service, or device; and d. Preventing reuse of identifiers for one (1) year. In practice: HR-driven onboarding assigns each person a unique ID after authorized sign-off. The ID is not reused for at least one year, and each service account or device gets its own identifier. |
|
Primary |
Unique identifier standards and non-reuse rules in lifecycle and correlation workflows commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-5 IA: Identification and Authentication | Authenticator Management Manage system authenticators by: a. Verifying, as part of the initial authenticator distribution, the identity of the individual, group, role, service, or device receiving the authenticator; b. Establishing initial authenticator content for any authenticators issued by the organization; c. Ensuring that authenticators have sufficient strength of mechanism for their intended use; d. Establishing and implementing administrative procedures for initial authenticator distribution, for lost or compromised or damaged authenticators, and for revoking authenticators; e. Changing default authenticators prior to first use; f. Changing or refreshing memorized secret authenticators annually or when there is evidence of authenticator compromise; changing or refreshing all other authenticator types as they expire or when there is evidence of authenticator compromise; g. Protecting authenticator content from unauthorized disclosure and modification; h. Requiring individuals to take, and having devices implement, specific controls to protect authenticators; and i. Changing authenticators for group or role accounts when membership to those accounts changes. [items j through o omitted: AAL2 specific requirements, privacy requirements, general AAL2 requirements, biometric requirements, authenticator binding and session management] In practice: Credentials are issued only after the person's identity is checked. Passwords and keys for services are stored in a vault, rotated on a schedule, and phishing-resistant methods are encouraged. |
|
Primary |
Authenticator lifecycle settings, credential vaulting and phishing-resistant methods commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-5(2) IA: Identification and Authentication | Authenticator Management | Public Key Based Authentication (a) For public key-based authentication: 1. Enforce authorized access to the corresponding private key; and 2. Map the authenticated identity to the account of the individual or group; and (b) When public key infrastructure (PKI) is used: 1. Validate certificates by constructing and verifying a certification path to an accepted trust anchor, including checking certificate status information; and 2. Implement a local cache of revocation data to support path discovery and validation. In practice: Where staff or servers sign in with certificates or keys, each key pair is tied to one named person or service, and the private key's access is limited to that owner. |
|
Primary |
Certificate and key-based authentication mapped to named identities commonly contributes here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-8 IA: Identification and Authentication | Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) Uniquely identify and authenticate non-organizational users or processes acting on behalf of non-organizational users. In practice: Staff of partner agencies and other non-organizational users sign in with their own identities through federation, so each outside user is individually identified and nobody shares a login. |
|
Primary |
Identity federation and external identity configuration commonly contribute to identifying and authenticating non-organizational users. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-8(2) IA: Identification and Authentication | Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) | Acceptance of External Authenticators (a) Accept only external authenticators that are NIST-compliant; and (b) Document and maintain a list of accepted external authenticators. In practice: For a public-facing system, a written list records which outside authenticators the agency accepts, and the identity team updates it when the accepted list changes. |
|
Primary |
A documented list of accepted external identity providers and authenticators commonly contributes here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-8(4) IA: Identification and Authentication | Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) | Use of Defined Profiles Conform to the following profiles for identity management: Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) or OpenID Connect. In practice: Applications connect to outside partners using SAML or OpenID Connect, the two profiles the requirement names, and the integration team records which application uses which. |
|
Primary
Why this classificationClass differs from the NIST SP 800-53 r5 page: CJIS v6.1 IA-8(4) itself names the required profiles (SAML or OpenID Connect), so federation integration is the direct identity work here, whereas the 800-53 page rates the IA-8(4) enhancement as supporting because it leaves the profiles to the sponsoring program. |
SAML and OpenID Connect application integration commonly contributes to conforming to the named profiles. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-11 IA: Identification and Authentication | Re-Authentication Require users to re-authenticate when: roles, authenticators, or credentials change, security categories of systems change, the execution of privileged functions occur, or every 12 hours. In practice: Users must sign in again when they change roles, switch to a privileged function, or have been signed in for 12 hours, and the sign-in service applies those timers. |
|
Primary |
Reauthentication interval and step-up policy commonly contribute to re-authentication triggers. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-12 IA: Identification and Authentication | Identity Proofing a. Identity proof users that require accounts for logical access to systems based on appropriate identity assurance level requirements as specified in applicable standards and guidelines; b. Resolve user identities to a unique individual; and c. Collect, validate, and verify identity evidence. In practice: HR checks a new hire's identity. The onboarding workflow then ties the new account to that one verified person and flags any duplicate or unmatched account. |
|
Primary |
Onboarding workflows that resolve each account to one verified person commonly contribute, alongside HR identity proofing. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| PS-4 PS: Personnel Security | Personnel Termination Upon termination of individual employment: a. Disable system access within twenty-four (24) hours; b. Terminate or revoke any authenticators and credentials associated with the individual; c. Conduct exit interviews that include a discussion of non-disclosure of CJI and PII; d. Retrieve all security-related organizational system-related property; and e. Retain access to organizational information and systems formerly controlled by terminated individual. In practice: When HR records a termination, the leaver workflow disables the person's accounts within 24 hours and revokes their credentials, with a log entry for each step. |
|
Primary |
HR-driven leaver workflows commonly contribute to disabling access within 24 hours and revoking authenticators. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| PS-5 PS: Personnel Security | Personnel Transfer a. Review and confirm ongoing operational need for current logical and physical access authorizations to systems and facilities when individuals are reassigned or transferred to other positions within the organization; b. Initiate appropriate actions such as closing and establishing accounts and changing system access authorizations within twenty-four (24) hours; c. Modify access authorization as needed to correspond with any changes in operational need due to reassignment or transfer; and d. Notify organizational personnel with information security responsibilities, organizational personnel with personnel security responsibilities, system/network administrators, and organizational personnel with account management responsibilities prior to personnel transfer. In practice: When someone moves to a new role, the new manager gets a task to confirm which existing access still applies, and anything no longer needed is removed. |
|
Primary |
Mover workflows and recertification on role change commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 5.20.7.2 MOB: Mobile Devices (Policy Area 5.20) | Advanced Authentication When accessing CJI from an authorized mobile device, advanced authentication shall be used by the authorized user unless the access to CJI is indirect as described in Identification and Authentication (IA). If access is indirect, then AA is not required. In practice: The mobile device team owns the device setup. Identity contributes by requiring a strong second sign-in factor when staff open criminal justice information from an authorized phone or tablet. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationDevice and mobile device management ownership usually dominate under Section 5.20; identity contributes the authentication step. |
Strong authentication enforcement on mobile access to CJI commonly contributes here, alongside device registration. Section 5.20.7.2.1 allows CSO-approved compensating controls on agency-issued limited-feature devices. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-12 AC: Access Control | Session Termination Automatically terminate a user session after a user has been logged out. In practice: The security team owns session behavior. Identity contributes by configuring single logout on the single sign-on service, so signing out also ends the session in connected applications that support it. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationApplication and platform session handling is usually the primary implementation point. The requirement text is quoted exactly as published in version 6.1. |
Session lifetime and sign-out configuration on the identity provider commonly contributes here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-20 AC: Access Control | Use of External Systems a. Establish agency-level policies governing the use of external systems consistent with the trust relationships established with other organizations owning, operating, and/or maintaining external systems, allowing authorized individuals to: 1. Access the system from external systems; and 2. Process, store, or transmit organization-controlled information using external systems; or b. Prohibit the use of personally-owned information systems including mobile devices (i.e., bring your own device [BYOD]) and publicly accessible systems for accessing, processing, storing, or transmitting CJI. In practice: The agency sets the rules for outside systems and personal devices. Identity adds device-aware sign-in rules that allow or block access depending on whether the device is registered and managed. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationAgreements and technical limits on external systems extend beyond identity. |
Device-aware access policy commonly contributes to governing access from external systems and personally owned devices. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AU-2 AU: Audit and Accountability | Event Logging a. Identify the types of events that the system is capable of logging in support of the audit function: authentication, file use, user/group management, events sufficient to establish what occurred, the sources of events, outcomes of events, and operational transactions (e.g., NCIC, III); b. Coordinate the event logging function with other organizational entities requiring audit-related information to guide and inform the selection criteria for events to be logged; c. Specify the following event types for logging within the system: All successful and unsuccessful: 1. System log-on attempts 2. Attempts to use: a. Access permission on a user account, file, directory, or other system resource; b. Create permission on a user account, file, directory, or other system resource; c. Write permission on a user account, file, directory, or other system resource; d. Delete permission on a user account, file, directory, or other system resource; e. Change permission on a user account, file, directory, or other system resource. 3. Attempts to change account passwords 4. Actions by privileged accounts (i.e., root, Oracle, DBA, admin, etc.) 5. Attempts for users to: a. Access the audit log file; b. Modify the audit log file; c. Destroy the audit log file. d. Provide a rationale for why the event types selected for logging are deemed to be adequate to support after-the-fact investigations of incidents; and e. Review and update the event types selected for logging annually. In practice: The security team chooses which events to log. Identity contributes by turning on logging for sign-ins, group changes and privileged actions on the identity platform. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationAudit event selection is usually owned by security monitoring. |
Identity platform event selection for sign-in, permission changes and privileged actions commonly contributes here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AU-3 AU: Audit and Accountability | Content of Audit Records Ensure that audit records contain information that establishes the following: a. What type of event occurred; b. When the event occurred; c. Where the event occurred; d. Source of the event; e. Outcome of the event; and f. Identity of any individuals, subjects, or objects/entities associated with the event. In practice: System owners decide what audit records contain; each identity log entry adds what happened, when, where, the source, the result and which named account was involved. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationRecord content is determined by each log source. |
Identity audit records that carry the acting identity commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AU-6 AU: Audit and Accountability | Audit Record Review, Analysis, and Reporting a. Review and analyze system audit records weekly for indications of inappropriate or unusual activity and the potential impact of the inappropriate or unusual activity; b. Report findings to organizational personnel with audit review, analysis, and reporting responsibilities and organizational personnel with information security and privacy responsibilities; and c. Adjust the level of audit record review, analysis, and reporting within the system when there is a change in risk based on law enforcement information, intelligence information, or other credible sources of information. In practice: The security team reviews logs weekly and reports findings. Identity logs supply sign-in and permission-change records, and alerts point reviewers to unusual account activity. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationReview and reporting processes are usually owned by security operations. |
Identity log review and alerting commonly contribute to identifying unusual account activity. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AU-12 AU: Audit and Accountability | Audit Record Generation a. Provide audit record generation capability for the event types the system is capable of auditing as defined in AU-2a on all systems generating required audit logs; b. Allow organizational personnel with audit record generation responsibilities, organizational personnel with information security and privacy responsibilities, and system/network administrators to select the event types that are to be logged by specific components of the system; and c. Generate audit records for the event types defined in AU-2c that include the audit record content defined in AU-3. In practice: System owners enable audit logging on their systems; identity contributes by switching on log generation across the identity systems so account and sign-in events are captured. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationGeneration capability is usually a feature of each system. |
Enabling identity audit generation on identity systems commonly contributes here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-1 IA: Identification and Authentication | Policy and Procedures a. Develop, document, and disseminate to authorized personnel: 1. Agency/Entity identification and authentication policy that: (a) Addresses purpose, scope, roles, responsibilities, management commitment, coordination among organizational entities, and compliance; and (b) Is consistent with applicable laws, executive orders, directives, regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and 2. Procedures to facilitate the implementation of the identification and authentication policy and the associated identification and authentication controls; b. Designate organizational personnel with information security responsibilities to manage the development, documentation, and dissemination of the identification and authentication policy and procedures; and c. Review and update the current identification and authentication: 1. Policy annually and following any security incidents involving unauthorized access to CJI or systems used to process, store, or transmit CJI; and 2. Procedures annually and following any security incidents involving unauthorized access to CJI or systems used to process, store, or transmit CJI. In practice: The agency keeps a written sign-in policy with an owner and a review cycle. An assessment of the current identity setup gives the policy writers an accurate picture of what exists. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationPolicy documentation is usually owned by the security governance function. |
Assessment work commonly contributes to documenting the identification and authentication policy and procedures. |
Not mapped | Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-2(12) IA: Identification and Authentication | Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) | Acceptance of PIV Credentials Accept and electronically verify Personal Identity Verification-compliant credentials. In practice: The security team decides which smart cards are accepted; the sign-in service checks each card's certificate electronically and links it to the holder's named account. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationThe policy describes Personal Identity Verification credentials as credentials issued by federal agencies that conform to FIPS 201. In GCA's classification this is supporting: accepting those credentials is an identity configuration choice, while whether a CJIS Systems Agency requires them is the agency's decision. Confirm how your CJIS Systems Agency applies this requirement. |
Certificate-based and PIV credential sign-in commonly contributes to accepting and verifying PIV credentials. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-3 IA: Identification and Authentication | Device Identification and Authentication Uniquely identify and authenticate agency-managed devices before establishing network connections. In the instance of local connection, the device must be approved by the agency and the device must be identified and authenticated prior to connection to an agency asset. In practice: Agency laptops and other managed devices are registered and hold a certificate, and the network checks that certificate before it lets the device connect. The network team owns that check. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationNetwork-layer device authentication is usually owned by network engineering. |
Device registration and certificate-based device authentication commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-5(6) IA: Identification and Authentication | Authenticator Management | Protection of Authenticators Protect authenticators commensurate with the security category of the information to which use of the authenticator permits access. In practice: System owners set protection levels by data category; identity contributes a vault with limited access for privileged and service account passwords, keys and tokens. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationProtection levels depend on the system storing the authenticator. |
Credential vaulting and protection of service and privileged secrets commonly contributes here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| IA-8(1) IA: Identification and Authentication | Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) | Acceptance of PIV Credentials From Other Agencies Accept and electronically verify Personal Identity Verification-compliant credentials from other federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial (SLTT) agencies. In practice: Another agency's staff can use their own smart card to reach shared systems. The security team sets up the federation trust, and the sign-in service verifies the credential. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationWhich other agencies' credentials are trusted is an agency policy decision; identity configures how they are verified. |
Federation trust configuration commonly contributes to accepting PIV credentials from other agencies. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| PS-3 PS: Personnel Security | Personnel Screening a. Screen individuals prior to authorizing access to the information system; [items a.1 through a.7 and b omitted: record check, access approval and access list requirements, and rescreening] In practice: HR owns background screening. The onboarding workflow does not grant access to systems with criminal justice information until HR marks the person's screening as done. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationScreening itself is usually performed by human resources and security. |
Screening-complete gates in onboarding workflows commonly contribute to authorizing access only after screening. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| PS-7 PS: Personnel Security | External Personnel Security a. Establish personnel security requirements, including security roles and responsibilities for external providers; b. Require external providers to comply with personnel security policies and procedures established by the organization; c. Document personnel security requirements; d. Require external providers to notify organizational personnel with information security responsibilities, organizational personnel with personnel security responsibilities, system/network administrators, or organizational personnel with account management responsibilities of any personnel transfers or terminations of external personnel who possess organizational credentials and/or badges, or who have system privileges within twenty-four (24) hours; and e. Monitor provider compliance with personnel security requirements. In practice: The agency sets security rules for providers; identity gives contractors and vendors sponsored accounts with an end date, re-confirmed by the sponsor and closed when the contract ends. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationContract terms and security requirements are usually owned by procurement and security. |
Contractor and external identity lifecycle, sponsorship and expiry commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| AC-8 AC: Access Control | System Use Notification a. Display a system use notification message to users before granting access to the system that provides privacy and security notices consistent with applicable laws, executive orders, directives, regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines and state that: 1. Users are accessing a restricted information system; 2. System usage may be monitored, recorded, and subject to audit; 3. Unauthorized use of the system is prohibited and subject to criminal and civil penalties; and 4. Use of the system indicates consent to monitoring and recording. b. Retain the notification message or banner on the screen until users acknowledge the usage conditions and take explicit actions to log on to or further access the system; and c. For publicly accessible systems: 1. Display system use information consistent with applicable laws, executive orders, directives, regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines, before granting further access to the publicly accessible system; 2. Display references, if any, to monitoring, recording, or auditing that are consistent with privacy accommodations for such systems that generally prohibit those activities; and 3. Include a description of the authorized uses of the system. |
|
Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Why this classificationDisplay of a system use notification before access. Primary ownership usually sits with application, endpoint and operating system teams. |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| AC-11 AC: Access Control | Device Lock a. Prevent further access to the system by initiating a device lock after a maximum of 30 minutes of inactivity and requiring the user to initiate a device lock before leaving the system unattended. NOTE: In the interest of safety, devices that are: (1) part of a criminal justice conveyance; or (2) used to perform dispatch functions and located within a physically secure location; or (3) terminals designated solely for the purpose of receiving alert notifications (i.e., receive only terminals or ROT) used within physically secure location facilities that remain staffed when in operation, are exempt from this requirement. b. Retain the device lock until the user reestablishes access using established identification and authentication procedures. |
|
Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Why this classificationDevice lock after inactivity. Primary ownership usually sits with endpoint management and operating system configuration. |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
No requirements match the current filters.
Summary
- Primary
- 30
- Identity platforms or processes are typically the principal means of implementing the requirement.
- Supporting
- 14
- Another discipline owns the requirement. Identity configuration or evidence contributes.
- Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
- 2
- Listed for completeness, with a one-line note on what the requirement is.
How to read the matrix
- Priority marking
- The priority the policy assigns to the requirement in its List of Priorities and section headings. Unmarked means the section carries no priority marking.
- Existing from v5.9
- True when the policy marks the requirement as existing from version 5.9, either by an asterisk in the List of Priorities or an Existing marking on the section, or, for a non-modernized section with no marking, because Section 1.4 treats it as existing.
- Audit and sanction status
- Under section 1.4 of the policy, beginning October 1, 2024, requirements that existed before modernization and Priority 1 requirements are the sanctionable set. Priority 2, 3 and 4 modernized requirements are in zero-cycle status from October 1, 2024 through September 30, 2027. This column applies that rule to each row as of the date shown on the page.
- Identity relevance
Identity relevance is a GCA classification of whether identity capabilities are typically the principal means of implementing a requirement (Primary), contribute to a requirement owned by another discipline (Supporting), or usually sit outside identity work (Outside identity scope (GCA classification)).
It describes where primary implementation ownership usually sits. It is not a statement about whether identity configuration could be relevant to a particular incident, finding or environment. Every "Outside identity scope (GCA classification)" classification carries a rationale, and other classifications show one where GCA has recorded it, under "Why this classification" beside the label.
- Platform families
- Product families that commonly provide capabilities relevant to a requirement. A blank cell means GCA has not mapped a platform family to the requirement. It does not mean a product lacks a capability.
- Evidence
- Examples of artifacts commonly examined. The list is not complete, and it is not a statement that any artifact is sufficient. Assessors determine sufficiency.
Sources
- Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy, Version 6.1, 06/25/2026 (CJISSECPOL v6.1) FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division
- CJIS Security Policy Resource Center (official listing of the current policy and companion documents) FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division
- NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations National Institute of Standards and Technology
Important notice
Purpose. This CJIS Security Policy identity traceability matrix is general educational reference material, written by Robert Ivey and published by GCA Technology Services ("GCA") to help organizations plan identity and access management work. It is not legal, audit, accounting or compliance advice, and it is not a substitute for advice from qualified professionals who know your environment.
No compliance determination. Whether an organization meets a requirement is decided by the applicable assessor, auditor, certifying body or regulator, applying the governing requirements to that organization's actual systems, policies and evidence. Nothing in this matrix states or implies that any organization, product, service or configuration meets or complies with any requirement, or that any assessment, audit, examination or certification will have any particular outcome.
Classifications are practice opinion. Relevance classifications, offering mappings, platform mappings and evidence examples are the author's professional judgment as of the date shown. They are not regulatory classifications and are not statements of the standard of care. Other qualified practitioners may reasonably classify requirements differently, and the right answer for a given environment depends on its facts.
Evidence examples are illustrative. Evidence listed is an example of artifacts commonly examined. It is not a complete list, and it is not a statement that any artifact is sufficient. Assessors determine sufficiency.
Source text controls. Requirement text and references come from the sources listed on this page. Where this matrix differs from a source, the source controls. Regulations, guidance and assessment methods change, so confirm current requirements with the issuing authority before relying on them.
Products and services. Platform names identify product families that commonly provide capabilities relevant to a requirement. A blank cell means GCA has not mapped that platform family to the requirement. It does not mean the product lacks a capability. GCA makes no representation about any third party's products, features, roadmaps or government authorization status, including FedRAMP, DoD Impact Levels and similar programs. Confirm capabilities with the vendor and authorization status with the authorizing program.
GCA services. Offering descriptions identify the type of GCA service that addresses an area. The scope, deliverables, terms and outcomes of any GCA engagement are defined only by a signed agreement and Statement of Work, and this page does not change those terms.
No relationship; no reliance. Reading or using this matrix does not create a client, advisory or other relationship with GCA or the author. To the fullest extent permitted by law, this material is provided "as is," without warranties of any kind, express or implied, including accuracy, completeness, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and GCA is not liable for any decision made or action taken in reliance on it.
No client data. This matrix contains no client data. Any example organization is fictitious.
Version 1 · Prepared · Last reviewed · Reviewed every 90 days · View changelog
© 2026 Quasius Investment Corp. d/b/a GCA Technology Services. The selection, arrangement, classifications and annotations in this matrix are GCA's original work. You may use this matrix within your organization for planning and may quote short portions with attribution to GCA and a link to this page. Republishing the matrix in whole or in substantial part requires GCA's written permission. Requirement text quoted on this page comes from the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, CJIS Security Policy Version 6.1, and is reproduced with attribution. It is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright in the United States (17 U.S.C. 105). The source publication controls, and its publisher does not endorse this page.
Microsoft and Microsoft Entra are trademarks of the Microsoft group of companies. SailPoint, IdentityIQ and Identity Security Cloud are trademarks or product names of SailPoint Technologies, Inc. or its affiliates. Netwrix is a trademark of Netwrix Corporation. Okta is a trademark of Okta, Inc. Ping Identity is a trademark of Ping Identity Corporation. CyberArk is a trademark of Palo Alto Networks, Inc. or its affiliates. BeyondTrust is a trademark of BeyondTrust Corporation. Delinea is a trademark of Delinea Inc. CJIS is a division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which does not endorse this page. All other trademarks belong to their respective owners. These names identify products and programs only and do not imply endorsement by, sponsorship by or affiliation with any of these companies or programs, except where a GCA partnership is expressly stated elsewhere on gca.net.
Changelog
- Version 1: First publication.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does advanced authentication mean in CJIS version 6.1?
Section 5.20.7.2 is titled Advanced Authentication and covers CJI access from an authorized mobile device. For account-level multifactor questions, use IA-2(1) and IA-2(2) in version 6.1, which set the general requirement.
Which CJIS requirements are sanctionable as of October 16, 2026?
Under Section 1.4, requirements that existed before modernization and Priority 1 requirements are sanctionable. In this matrix, 35 rows are sanctionable and 11 are zero-cycle. Two of the sanctionable rows, AU-2 and PS-5, depend on the asterisk in the policy's List of Priorities, because their section headings carry no Existing marking. Confirm local audit baselines with the agency that administers CJI access.
Are the NIST mappings official?
No. The policy does not state which NIST SP 800-53 revision it aligns to, so each mapping to Rev. 5 is GCA judgment. The policy text is quoted, and the mappings are GCA's practice opinion.
Is GCA affiliated with the FBI?
No. GCA is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the CJIS Division.