6.1 Threat Model for the Audit Platform

The audit and forensics platform is itself a high-value target. Attackers who can compromise the platform can delete evidence, alter logs, or gain intelligence about what the security team knows. A dedicated threat model for the platform infrastructure — separate from the threats it monitors — is therefore essential. This section applies STRIDE methodology to identify the most critical threats to platform integrity.

STRIDE CategoryThreatTarget ComponentImpactLikelihoodPriority
TamperingAttacker modifies SIEM rules to suppress alerts for their TTPsSIEM rule engineCritical — detection blind spotMediumP1
TamperingAdmin deletes or modifies evidence vault objectsEvidence Vault / WORM storageCritical — evidence destructionLow (if WORM enforced)P1
RepudiationAdmin denies performing privileged actionsBastion/PAM session recordsHigh — non-repudiation failureMediumP1
Information DisclosureUnauthorized access to evidence vault exposes investigation dataEvidence VaultHigh — investigation compromiseMediumP1
Denial of ServiceLog flood attack overwhelms collector and drops evidenceLog CollectorHigh — evidence gapHighP1
Elevation of PrivilegeCompromise of SIEM admin account grants full platform accessSIEM admin interfaceCritical — full platform compromiseMediumP1
SpoofingAttacker injects forged log events to mislead investigationLog Collector ingest interfaceHigh — false evidenceMediumP2
TamperingNTP manipulation causes time skew, invalidating evidence timelineNTP infrastructureHigh — timeline integrity failureLowP2

6.2 Platform Security Controls

The following security controls are mandatory for all deployments of the audit and forensics platform. These controls directly address the threats identified in the threat model and must be verified during acceptance testing (see Chapter 10). Controls are organized by the platform component they protect.

ComponentSecurity ControlImplementationVerification Method
All ComponentsMFA for all administrative accessTOTP/hardware token; SSO with MFA enforcementAttempt admin login without MFA — must fail
All ComponentsTLS 1.3 for all inter-component communicationmTLS with certificate pinning for internal APIsTLS scan; reject TLS 1.2 and below
SIEM PlatformRule change audit trailAll rule modifications logged to immutable meta-audit indexModify rule; verify log entry in meta-audit; attempt deletion
SIEM PlatformRBAC with least privilegeAnalyst role: read-only; Admin role: config only; Evidence role: separateAttempt cross-role actions; verify denial
Evidence VaultWORM object lock (compliance mode)S3 Object Lock compliance mode; retention period enforced by storage layerAttempt object deletion/modification during retention period — must fail
Evidence VaultEncryption at rest (AES-256)KMS-managed keys; HSM-backed key storageVerify encryption headers; test key rotation procedure
Log CollectorRate limiting and flood protectionPer-source EPS rate limits; circuit breaker for flood eventsFlood test at 10× normal rate; verify spool and rate limiting
Log CollectorSource authenticationmTLS client certificates for all log sources; IP allowlist as secondary controlAttempt log injection without valid cert — must fail
Bastion/PAMSession recording tamper protectionRecordings stored in WORM vault; admin cannot access recording storageAttempt recording deletion as bastion admin — must fail
NTP InfrastructureAuthenticated NTP (NTS)Network Time Security (NTS) for NTP authentication; GPS-disciplined Stratum 1Verify NTS authentication; test with unauthenticated NTP source

6.3 Risk Register

The risk register documents the residual risks that remain after all mandatory security controls are implemented. Each risk is assessed for likelihood and impact, with the resulting risk score used to prioritize additional mitigations. Risk owners are responsible for monitoring and reporting on their assigned risks during the operational phase.

Risk IDRisk DescriptionLikelihood (1–5)Impact (1–5)Risk ScoreMitigationResidual Risk
R-01Evidence vault storage failure causes evidence loss2510Erasure coding + geo-redundant replication; quarterly DR testLow
R-02Log collector capacity exceeded during major incident, causing evidence gaps3412N+1 collector deployment; 72h spool; capacity monitoring with 80% alert thresholdMedium
R-03SIEM admin account compromise allows rule manipulation2510MFA; break-glass procedure; rule change alerts to separate monitoring channelLow
R-04Cloud API log retention gap (default 90 days) misses evidence for long-running investigations4416Extend cloud audit log retention to 1 year; export to evidence vault within 24hMedium
R-05NTP failure causes time skew across evidence sources248Redundant NTP servers; NTS authentication; skew monitoring with 1s alert thresholdLow
R-06KMS/HSM failure prevents evidence signing and access155HA HSM pair; documented key recovery procedure; quarterly recovery testLow
R-07Insider threat by SOC analyst accesses sensitive investigation data248RBAC; case-based access control; access logging; dual-control for sensitive casesLow

6.4 Compliance Framework Mapping

The platform design is aligned with multiple compliance frameworks. The table below maps the key platform controls to their corresponding requirements in major frameworks, enabling compliance teams to use the platform's built-in capabilities to satisfy audit requirements without additional controls.

Platform ControlISO 27001NIST CSFPCI DSS v4SOC 2 Type IIGDPR
Centralized log collectionA.12.4.1DE.CM-1Req 10.2CC7.2Art. 32
WORM evidence vaultA.12.4.2PR.DS-6Req 10.5CC6.1Art. 5(1)(e)
Privileged access managementA.9.4.4PR.AC-4Req 7.2, 8.2CC6.3Art. 25
Cryptographic integrity (SHA-256)A.10.1.1PR.DS-6Req 10.5.5CC6.1Art. 32
Retention policy enforcementA.18.1.3PR.IP-6Req 10.7A1.2Art. 5(1)(e)
Chain-of-custody workflowA.16.1.7RS.AN-3Req 12.10CC7.4Art. 33