NYDFS 23 NYCRR Part 500 | Second Amendment
How Identity and Access Management Supports NYDFS 23 NYCRR 500
NYDFS 500 (23 NYCRR Part 500), the New York Department of Financial Services cybersecurity regulation, puts identity controls in the regulation text. Section 500.7 covers access privileges and management, including limiting privileged accounts, periodic access review and prompt termination of access. Section 500.12 covers multi-factor authentication. The Second Amendment took effect November 1, 2023. Its new requirements phased in on the dates set by section 500.22, and the last transitional period ended November 1, 2025, so all of them now apply. The matrix shows each row's transitional date for reference.
This page quotes the Second Amendment from the text published by DFS, which is not the official NYCRR compilation. The matrix has 28 rows. Eight are primary identity work, eight are supporting, and twelve are outside identity scope (GCA classification). Two rows apply only to Class A companies as defined in 500.1(d): 500.7(c) on privileged access management and common-password blocking, and 500.14(b) on endpoint detection and centralized logging. Limited-exemption entities under 500.19(a) are excused from some provisions.
For CIOs and compliance leaders
- Section 500.7(a)(4) calls for periodic review, at a minimum annually, of all user access privileges, with removal or disabling of accounts and access that are no longer necessary.
- Section 500.12(a) requires multi-factor authentication for any individual accessing any information system of a covered entity. An entity with a limited exemption under 500.19(a) must still use it for remote access, remote access to third-party applications holding nonpublic information, and privileged accounts other than non-interactive service accounts. Where the entity has a CISO, the CISO may approve reasonably equivalent compensating controls in writing under 500.12(b).
- All transitional periods have ended. Section 500.7 had an 18-month period that ended May 1, 2025, and sections 500.12 and 500.13(a) had two years, ending November 1, 2025.
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. 23 NYCRR Part 500 controls. Read the full notice.
The matrix
- Primary
- Supporting
- Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Showing 28 of 28 requirements
| Requirement | Requirement text | Applies to / Transitional period ends (500.22(d)) | Identity relevance (GCA classification) | GCA approach | Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities | Evidence commonly examined |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 500.7(a)(1) ACC: Access and authentication (500.7, 500.12) | Access privileges: limit to job need 500.7 Access privileges and management. (a) As part of its cybersecurity program, based on the covered entity’s risk assessment each covered entity shall: (1) limit user access privileges to information systems that provide access to nonpublic information to only those necessary to perform the user’s job; In practice: People receive access based on their job function through roles, and anything beyond the role goes through a request that a manager or application owner approves. |
|
Primary
Why this classificationLeast-privilege access design is identity governance work. The covered entity decides which systems hold nonpublic information. |
A role and entitlement model scoped to job function, with a request and approval workflow for access beyond the role, commonly contributes here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.7(a)(2) ACC: Access and authentication (500.7, 500.12) | Privileged accounts: limit number and functions (2) limit the number of privileged accounts and limit the access functions of privileged accounts to only those necessary to perform the user’s job; In practice: The team keeps a list of privileged accounts, uses separate admin accounts, limits what each admin role can do, and reviews who belongs to those groups. |
|
Primary
Why this classificationPrivileged account governance is identity and privileged access work. Under 500.1(n) a privileged account includes a service account. |
Privileged account inventory, separation of administrative accounts, role-limited administrative functions and membership review commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.7(a)(3) ACC: Access and authentication (500.7, 500.12) | Privileged accounts: limit use (3) limit the use of privileged accounts to only when performing functions requiring the use of such access; In practice: Administrators raise their rights only for a specific task: elevation is time-bound, credentials are checked out with approval, and the privileged session is recorded. |
|
Primary
Why this classificationJust-in-time elevation and checkout are privileged access functions. |
Time-bound elevation, credential checkout with approval and session recording for privileged use commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.7(a)(4) ACC: Access and authentication (500.7, 500.12) | Periodic access review (4) periodically, but at a minimum annually, review all user access privileges and remove or disable accounts and access that are no longer necessary; In practice: At least once a year, and often more frequently, reviewers go through every user's access in a campaign, and removals made during the review are recorded with the completed campaign. |
|
Primary
Why this classificationAccess review campaigns are the principal identity governance control for this provision. Reviewers sit in the business. |
Annual or more frequent review campaigns covering all user access privileges, with recorded revocations and campaign completion evidence, commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.7(a)(6) ACC: Access and authentication (500.7, 500.12) | Prompt termination of access (6) promptly terminate access following departures. In practice: When HR records a departure, the identity governance platform removes directory, privileged and third-party access, and a reconciliation report catches accounts that stayed active. |
|
Primary
Why this classificationLeaver deprovisioning is identity lifecycle work driven by the HR source. |
Automated leaver processing from the HR source, reconciliation for accounts still active and removal of privileged and third-party access commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.7(b) ACC: Access and authentication (500.7, 500.12) | Written password policy (b) To the extent passwords are employed as a method of authentication, the covered entity shall implement a written password policy that meets industry standards. In practice: The written password policy is applied as actual settings in the directory and identity provider, and the policy notes any applications the entity has moved to passwordless sign-in. |
|
Primary
Why this classificationPassword policy settings are directory and identity provider configuration; the written policy is owned by the CISO. |
Policy settings on the directory and identity provider that match the written password policy commonly contribute here. Where the entity chooses passwordless sign-in for some applications, the policy can record which applications no longer rely on passwords. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.7(c) ACC: Access and authentication (500.7, 500.12) | Class A: privileged access management and common-password blocking (c) Each class A company shall monitor privileged access activity and shall implement: (1) a privileged access management solution; and (2) an automated method of blocking commonly used passwords for all accounts on information systems owned or controlled by the class A company and wherever feasible for all other accounts. To the extent the class A company determines that blocking commonly used passwords is infeasible, the covered entity’s CISO may instead approve in writing at least annually the infeasibility and the use of reasonably equivalent or more secure compensating controls. In practice: At Class A companies, privileged accounts are managed in a privileged access tool with activity monitored, and an automated banned-password list blocks commonly used passwords. |
|
Primary
Why this classificationA privileged access management solution and password blocking are identity platform capabilities. Applies only to Class A companies. |
Privileged access management deployment with activity monitoring, and banned-password protection across directory accounts, commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.12(a) ACC: Access and authentication (500.7, 500.12) | Multi-factor authentication 500.12 Multi-factor authentication. (a) Multi-factor authentication shall be utilized for any individual accessing any information systems of a covered entity, unless the covered entity qualifies for a limited exemption pursuant to section 500.19(a) of this Part in which case multi-factor authentication shall be utilized for: (1) remote access to the covered entity’s information systems; (2) remote access to third-party applications, including but not limited to those that are cloud based, from which nonpublic information is accessible; and (3) all privileged accounts other than service accounts that prohibit interactive login. In practice: Employees, remote users, third parties and administrators all complete multi-factor sign-in, with a registration report and a written list of any exclusions. |
|
Primary
Why this classificationMulti-factor authentication policy is identity platform work. The scope of the requirement depends on whether the entity qualifies for the limited exemption in 500.19(a). |
Multi-factor policy across workforce, remote, third-party application and privileged sign-in, with registration reporting and documented exclusions, commonly contributes here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.3(d) PRG: Program, policy and governance (500.2 to 500.5, 500.9, 500.10) | Cybersecurity policy: access controls and identity management Each covered entity shall implement and maintain a written policy or policies, approved at least annually by a senior officer or the covered entity’s senior governing body for the protection of its information systems and nonpublic information stored on those information systems. Procedures shall be developed, documented and implemented in accordance with the written policy or policies. The cybersecurity policy or policies and procedures shall be based on the covered entity’s risk assessment and address, at a minimum, the following areas to the extent applicable to the covered entity’s operations: (a) information security; (b) data governance, classification and retention; (c) asset inventory, device management and end of life management; (d) access controls, including remote access and identity management; [remaining areas (e) to (o) omitted] In practice: The policy owner writes and approves the access policy; identity engineers review the access sections so the written rules describe how the platform is actually configured. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationThe written policy is usually owned by the CISO and approved by a senior officer. The policy must address access controls and identity management among its areas. |
Drafting and review of the identity and access policy sections, aligned to the configured platform behavior, commonly contribute here. |
Not mapped | Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.6(a) MON: Audit trail, monitoring and assets (500.6, 500.13, 500.14) | Audit trail 500.6 Audit trail. (a) Each covered entity shall securely maintain systems that, to the extent applicable and based on its risk assessment: (1) are designed to reconstruct material financial transactions sufficient to support normal operations and obligations of the covered entity; and (2) include audit trails designed to detect and respond to cybersecurity events that have a reasonable likelihood of materially harming any material part of the normal operations of the covered entity. In practice: The audit trail system belongs to security or IT; identity events such as sign-ins, elevations and entitlement changes are retained and forwarded there so they can be searched later. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationAudit trail design is usually owned by application and security teams. Identity events are one source of detection-oriented audit data. |
Identity audit events (sign-in, elevation, entitlement change) that are retained and forwarded to the audit trail system commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.9(a) PRG: Program, policy and governance (500.2 to 500.5, 500.9, 500.10) | Risk assessment (a) Each covered entity shall conduct a periodic risk assessment of the covered entity’s information systems sufficient to inform the design of the cybersecurity program as required by this Part. Such risk assessment shall be reviewed and updated as reasonably necessary, but at a minimum annually, and whenever a change in the business or technology causes a material change to the covered entity’s cyber risk. The covered entity’s risk assessment shall allow for revision of controls to respond to technological developments and evolving threats and shall consider the particular risks of the covered entity’s business operations related to cybersecurity, nonpublic information collected or stored, information systems utilized and the availability and effectiveness of controls to protect nonpublic information and information systems. In practice: The risk assessment team owns the assessment; identity hands over its account and entitlement inventory and recent review results for the access-related sections. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationThe risk assessment is usually owned by the CISO. Identity inventory and access findings commonly inform it. |
Identity and entitlement inventory and review results commonly serve as inputs to the access-related risk assessment. |
Not mapped | Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.11(b)(1) TPS: Third-party service providers and application security (500.8, 500.11) | Third-party service providers: access controls (b) Such policies and procedures shall include relevant guidelines for due diligence and/or contractual protections relating to third-party service providers including to the extent applicable guidelines addressing: (1) the third-party service provider’s policies and procedures for access controls, including its use of multi-factor authentication as required by section 500.12 of this Part, to limit access to relevant information systems and nonpublic information; In practice: The vendor management team sets third-party rules; identity gives provider staff sponsored accounts with multi-factor sign-in and lets owners review what those accounts can reach. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationProvider due diligence and contracts are usually owned by vendor risk management. Identity governs the accounts and multi-factor requirements applied to provider access. |
Sponsored provider identities, multi-factor requirements on provider access and review of provider entitlements commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.12(b) ACC: Access and authentication (500.7, 500.12) | Multi-factor authentication: compensating controls (b) If the covered entity has a CISO, the CISO may approve in writing the use of reasonably equivalent or more secure compensating controls. Such controls shall be reviewed periodically, but at a minimum annually. In practice: If the CISO approves a substitute for multi-factor sign-in, identity keeps a register of those approvals with the affected systems and a date for the annual review. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationApproval of compensating controls rests with the CISO. Identity supplies the configuration and review evidence for any approved alternative. |
A register of approved compensating controls with annual review dates tied to the affected accounts or systems commonly contributes here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.13(a) MON: Audit trail, monitoring and assets (500.6, 500.13, 500.14) | Asset inventory (a) As part of its cybersecurity program, each covered entity shall implement written policies and procedures designed to produce and maintain a complete, accurate and documented asset inventory of the covered entity’s information systems. The asset inventory shall be maintained in accordance with written policies and procedures. At a minimum, such policies and procedures shall include: (1) a method to track key information for each asset, including, as applicable, the following: (i) owner; (ii) location; (iii) classification or sensitivity; (iv) support expiration date; and (v) recovery time objectives; and (2) the frequency required to update and validate the covered entity’s asset inventory. In practice: IT owns the asset inventory; identity contributes named owners for systems and service accounts and device identity records that the inventory can draw on. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationAsset inventory is usually owned by IT asset management. Identity contributes owner, service account and device identity records. |
Owner attribution for systems and service accounts, and device identity records that feed the inventory, commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.14(a)(1) MON: Audit trail, monitoring and assets (500.6, 500.13, 500.14) | Monitoring of authorized user activity 500.14 Monitoring and training. (a) As part of its cybersecurity program, each covered entity shall: (1) implement risk-based policies, procedures and controls designed to monitor the activity of authorized users and detect unauthorized access or use of, or tampering with, nonpublic information by such authorized users; In practice: Security monitors user activity; sign-in events and identity-based alerts, such as an unusual administrator login, feed that monitoring. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationUser activity monitoring is usually owned by security operations. Identity provides authentication, privilege and entitlement events. |
Identity events and identity-based detections that feed user activity monitoring commonly contribute here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.14(b) MON: Audit trail, monitoring and assets (500.6, 500.13, 500.14) | Class A: endpoint detection and centralized logging (b) Each class A company shall implement, unless the CISO has approved in writing the use of reasonably equivalent or more secure compensating controls: (1) an endpoint detection and response solution to monitor anomalous activity, including but not limited to lateral movement; and (2) a solution that centralizes logging and security event alerting. In practice: Security runs the central logging solution; identity audit and detection events are forwarded to it so alerts can draw on who signed in and what changed. |
|
Supporting
Why this classificationEndpoint detection and centralized logging are usually owned by security operations. Identity logs are an input to centralized logging. Applies only to Class A companies. |
Forwarding of identity audit and detection events to the centralized logging solution commonly contributes here. |
Platform families that commonly provide relevant capabilities
|
Evidence commonly examined
|
| 500.2(a) PRG: Program, policy and governance (500.2 to 500.5, 500.9, 500.10) | Cybersecurity program (a) Each covered entity shall maintain a cybersecurity program designed to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the covered entity’s information systems and nonpublic information stored on those information systems. |
|
Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Why this classificationIn GCA's classification, the cybersecurity program obligation usually sits with the CISO and senior management; no identity contribution is typical. Access privilege and multi-factor authentication requirements are covered under 500.7 and 500.12. |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 500.4(a) PRG: Program, policy and governance (500.2 to 500.5, 500.9, 500.10) | Chief information security officer (a) Chief information security officer. Each covered entity shall designate a CISO. The CISO may be employed by the covered entity, one of its affiliates or a third-party service provider. If the CISO is employed by a third-party service provider or an affiliate, the covered entity shall: (1) retain responsibility for compliance with this Part; (2) designate a senior member of the covered entity’s personnel responsible for direction and oversight of the third-party service provider; and (3) require the third-party service provider or affiliate to maintain a cybersecurity program that protects the covered entity in accordance with the requirements of this Part. |
|
Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Why this classificationGovernance designation usually owned by senior management. |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 500.5(a) PRG: Program, policy and governance (500.2 to 500.5, 500.9, 500.10) | Vulnerability management Each covered entity shall, in accordance with its risk assessment, develop and implement written policies and procedures for vulnerability management that are designed to assess and maintain the effectiveness of its cybersecurity program. These policies and procedures shall be designed to ensure that covered entities: (a) conduct, at a minimum: (1) penetration testing of their information systems from both inside and outside the information systems’ boundaries by a qualified internal or external party at least annually; and (2) automated scans of information systems, and a manual review of systems not covered by such scans, for the purpose of discovering, analyzing and reporting vulnerabilities at a frequency determined by the risk assessment, and promptly after any material system changes; (b) are promptly informed of new security vulnerabilities by having a monitoring process in place; and (c) timely remediate vulnerabilities, giving priority to vulnerabilities based on the risk they pose to the covered entity. |
|
Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Why this classificationVulnerability scanning and penetration testing usually owned by security engineering. |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 500.7(a)(5) ACC: Access and authentication (500.7, 500.12) | Remote control protocols (5) disable or securely configure all protocols that permit remote control of devices; |
|
Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Why this classificationIn GCA's classification, hardening of remote control protocols on devices is usually owned by infrastructure and endpoint teams. |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 500.8(a) TPS: Third-party service providers and application security (500.8, 500.11) | Application security (a) Each covered entity’s cybersecurity program shall include written procedures, guidelines and standards designed to ensure the use of secure development practices for in-house developed applications utilized by the covered entity, and procedures for evaluating, assessing or testing the security of externally developed applications utilized by the covered entity within the context of the covered entity’s technology environment. |
|
Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Why this classificationSecure development practices usually owned by engineering and application security. |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 500.10(a)(2) PRG: Program, policy and governance (500.2 to 500.5, 500.9, 500.10) | Cybersecurity personnel: updates and training (2) provide cybersecurity personnel with cybersecurity updates and training sufficient to address relevant cybersecurity risks; |
|
Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Why this classificationStaffing and training usually owned by the CISO and human resources. |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 500.13(b) MON: Audit trail, monitoring and assets (500.6, 500.13, 500.14) | Secure disposal of nonpublic information (b) As part of its cybersecurity program, each covered entity shall include policies and procedures for the secure disposal on a periodic basis of any nonpublic information identified in section 500.1(k)(2)–(3) of this Part that is no longer necessary for business operations or for other legitimate business purposes of the covered entity, except where such information is otherwise required to be retained by law or regulation, or where targeted disposal is not reasonably feasible due to the manner in which the information is maintained. |
|
Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Why this classificationData retention and disposal policy is usually owned by records management and data governance. Identity configuration seldom determines when nonpublic information is disposed of. |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 500.14(a)(2) MON: Audit trail, monitoring and assets (500.6, 500.13, 500.14) | Malicious code protection (2) implement risk-based controls designed to protect against malicious code, including those that monitor and filter web traffic and electronic mail to block malicious content; and |
|
Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Why this classificationWeb and email filtering usually owned by security engineering. |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 500.14(a)(3) MON: Audit trail, monitoring and assets (500.6, 500.13, 500.14) | Awareness training (3) provide periodic, but at a minimum annual, cybersecurity awareness training that includes social engineering for all personnel that is updated to reflect risks identified by the covered entity in its risk assessment. |
|
Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Why this classificationTraining usually owned by the CISO and human resources. |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 500.15(a) RES: Encryption, response and notices (500.15 to 500.17) | Encryption of nonpublic information (a) As part of its cybersecurity program, each covered entity shall implement a written policy requiring encryption that meets industry standards, to protect nonpublic information held or transmitted by the covered entity both in transit over external networks and at rest. |
|
Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Why this classificationEncryption usually owned by infrastructure and data security. |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 500.16(a)(1) RES: Encryption, response and notices (500.15 to 500.17) | Incident response plan (1) Incident response plan. Incident response plans shall be reasonably designed to enable prompt response to, and recovery from, any cybersecurity event materially affecting the confidentiality, integrity or availability of the covered entity’s information systems or the continuing functionality of any aspect of the covered entity’s business or operations. Such plans shall address the following areas with respect to different types of cybersecurity events, including disruptive events such as ransomware incidents: [list of areas (i) to (ix) omitted] |
|
Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Why this classificationThe rule requires incident response plans, which are program documents usually owned by security operations rather than an identity control. |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 500.17(a)(1) RES: Encryption, response and notices (500.15 to 500.17) | Notice of cybersecurity incident (1) Each covered entity shall notify the superintendent electronically in the form set forth on the department’s website as promptly as possible but in no event later than 72 hours after determining that a cybersecurity incident has occurred at the covered entity, its affiliates, or a third-party service provider. |
|
Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
Why this classificationRegulatory notice usually owned by legal and security leadership. |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
No requirements match the current filters.
Summary
- Primary
- 8
- Identity platforms or processes are typically the principal means of implementing the requirement.
- Supporting
- 8
- Another discipline owns the requirement. Identity configuration or evidence contributes.
- Outside identity scope (GCA classification)
- 12
- Listed for completeness, with a one-line note on what the requirement is.
How to read the matrix
- Applies to
- Whether the quoted provision applies to every covered entity, to every covered entity other than those with a limited exemption under 500.19(a), or only to a Class A company, as defined in 23 NYCRR 500.1(d). Section 500.19(a) excuses a limited-exemption entity from sections 500.4, 500.5, 500.6, 500.8, 500.10, 500.14(a)(1), (a)(2) and (b), 500.15 and 500.16.
- Transitional period ends (500.22(d))
- End of the transitional period that 23 NYCRR 500.22(d) gives for the new requirements of the second amendment, counted from the effective date of November 1, 2023. Not listed in 500.22(d) means the section is not named in 500.22(d), so the default period in 500.22(c) or the original schedule applies.
- 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
- Second Amendment to 23 NYCRR 500, Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies, effective November 1, 2023 (text published by DFS, which is not the official NYCRR compilation) New York State Department of Financial Services
- Cybersecurity Regulation 23 NYCRR Part 500 (DFS-hosted text, reposted July 2026) New York State Department of Financial Services
Important notice
Purpose. This NYDFS 23 NYCRR 500 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 New York State Department of Financial Services and is reproduced with attribution. It is the text of a New York State regulation, 23 NYCRR Part 500, quoted from the New York State Department of Financial Services' published text. 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. The New York State Department of Financial Services 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
Does this page say an organization is in compliance with Part 500?
No. The page maps identity contributions to the regulation text. Whether an entity meets Part 500 is a determination for the entity and its regulator, based on its own risk assessment and evidence.
What is a Class A company?
Class A companies are defined in 23 NYCRR 500.1(d). Two rows apply only to Class A companies: 500.7(c) on privileged access management and common-password blocking, and 500.14(b) on endpoint detection and centralized logging.
Why do the transitional dates differ?
Section 500.22(d) sets transitional periods counted from November 1, 2023. For 500.7 the period ended May 1, 2025, and for 500.12 and 500.13(a) it ended November 1, 2025. Sections not named in 500.22(d) followed the default 180-day period in 500.22(c), which ended April 29, 2024, or the original schedule. All of these periods have now passed.