CA-07 Continuous Monitoringca-7
Whether an AWS call fetches evidence for this control, and what to run. Its Rev5 baselines, the indicators that reach it and the FedRAMP guidance attached to it open below.
Nothing names itNo recipe names CA-07. 2 reach an indicator it shares, which is adjacency and not coverage — worth reading, not worth recording as evidence for this control.
Collect evidence (0)
Authored AWS and pipeline recipes whose output is evidence for CA-07. This mapping is this project’s opinion (AWS overlay v3.0.0, pipeline overlay v0.8.0), versioned separately from the dataset — the upstream FedRAMP rules name none of these tools.
No authored recipe names CA-07. The nearest authored work is below.
The operating half is pure telemetry: whether the Config recorder is on and recording every resource type, which Security Hub standards are enabled and their control statuses, whether Inspector and GuardDuty cover the account. The strategy the control actually names — the metrics chosen, the monitoring frequencies, who correlates and who reports — is a document, and the telemetry is what that document is measured against rather than a substitute for it.
A recipe would call:
This project’s assessment (automation register v0.9.0, reviewed 2026-08-11), versioned separately from the dataset and from the evidence overlays. It is an opinion about the AWS surface on that date, and the surface moves.
The KSI that reaches it is KSI-MLA-EVC — that is where the authoring would land. Browse /collect for the whole authored corpus.
Reaches the same indicator, not CA-07
These recipes prove a KSI that reaches it. None of them claims CA-07 — treat them as neighbours worth reading, not as coverage.
- AWS Config compliance results plus the State Manager association list proving a defined configuration is actually applied and re-applied to every managed node — instances are under SSM management, and the associations that carry your baseline report COMPLIANT on a schedule rather than drifting via KSI-MLA-EVCaws
- For each artifact actually running in the boundary, the cryptographic answer to whether it came from the build this provider claims built it: the signed provenance statement, the certificate identifying the workflow that produced it, and the transparency-log timestamps that make the signature checkable later. Collected alongside the two things that decide whether that answer can be trusted at all — the version of the verifying client, and the record of which deployed artifacts were submitted for verification in the first place. via KSI-MLA-EVCpipeline
What NIST requires of CA-07
The control statement from NIST 800-53 Rev5, verbatim. Square brackets are organization-defined parameters — yours to set, not FedRAMP's to dictate.
Develop a system-level continuous monitoring strategy and implement continuous monitoring in accordance with the organization-level continuous monitoring strategy that includes: a. Establishing the following system-level metrics to be monitored: [system-level metrics]; b. Establishing [frequencies] for monitoring and [frequencies] for assessment of control effectiveness; c. Ongoing control assessments in accordance with the continuous monitoring strategy; d. Ongoing monitoring of system and organization-defined metrics in accordance with the continuous monitoring strategy; e. Correlation and analysis of information generated by control assessments and monitoring; f. Response actions to address results of the analysis of control assessment and monitoring information; and g. Reporting the security and privacy status of the system to [organization-defined personnel or roles] [organization-defined frequency].
NIST SP 800-53 Rev5 catalog 5.2.0, from usnistgov/oscal-content at 78650f0. The FedRAMP dataset carries no control text; this is borrowed and pinned.
Rev5 baseline membership
Membership is the whole relationship — a baseline is a set of control ids. Class A carries no baseline at all. The Low/Moderate/High labels are an interpretation from control counts, not a dataset fact.
KSI indicators reaching this control (1)
Under 20x, these indicators are how this control is demonstrated — automated KSI evidence stands in for narrative control evidence.
FedRAMP guidance & parameters
Where you read the rule. Guidance names an FRR document, never a clause, so the links below offer the whole document and leave the reading to you.
- Follow the FedRAMP Continuous Collaborative Monitoring, Significant Change Notification, Vulnerability Detection and Response, and Vulnerability Evaluation and Reporting rules.This guidance points at the Collaborative Continuous Monitoring rules (CCM, 19 requirements).This guidance points at the Significant Change Notification rules (SCN, 17 requirements).This guidance points at the Vulnerability Detection and Response rules (VDR, 18 requirements).This guidance points at the Vulnerability Evaluation and Reporting rules (VER, 23 requirements).
Pages exist for the 209 controls reached by at least one KSI. Baseline-only controls are the orphans on /coverage. Control titles and full text live in the NIST catalog, not this dataset.