During a routine audit of a federal system's continuous monitoring program, the auditor finds that the 'Security Control Assessment' results are three years old. What is the non-compliance violation?
Three-year-old Security Control Assessment results breach the annual assessment requirement under continuous monitoring, since federal systems must reassess controls at least yearly to maintain authorisation. The stale results mean the organisation cannot demonstrate ongoing control effectiveness, directly violating the mandated annual testing cadence that continuous monitoring demands.
Why this answer
Under FISMA and NIST SP 800-53 / SP 800-137 continuous monitoring guidance, security controls must be assessed at a frequency sufficient to support ongoing authorization — commonly at least annually for most controls. Assessment results that are three years old indicate the organization failed to perform the required recurring control testing that underpins continuous monitoring and ongoing authorization.
Exam trap
CGRC often tests the shift from legacy triennial re-accreditation to continuous monitoring — the trap is selecting 'full re-accreditation' because it sounds like the formal compliance action, when the actual violation is the failure to perform recurring control assessments.
How to eliminate wrong answers
Option B is wrong because the scenario describes stale assessment results, not an unreported security incident — there is no breach mentioned, so US-CERT reporting obligations are irrelevant. Option C is wrong because FISMA replaced the old triennial re-accreditation model with continuous monitoring and ongoing authorization; a 'full re-accreditation' is not the compliance requirement being violated here. Option D is wrong because the SSP update issue is a documentation/database concern, not the substantive failure to reassess controls that the question describes.