Control statement
- a.Develop a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for the system describing how the organization intends to operate the system from the perspective of information security and privacy; and
- b.Review and update the CONOPS [Organization-defined: frequency].
Discussion
The CONOPS may be included in the security or privacy plans for the system or in other system development life cycle documents. The CONOPS is a living document that requires updating throughout the system development life cycle. For example, during system design reviews, the concept of operations is checked to ensure that it remains consistent with the design for controls, the system architecture, and the operational procedures. Changes to the CONOPS are reflected in ongoing updates to the security and privacy plans, security and privacy architectures, and other organizational documents, such as procurement specifications, system development life cycle documents, and systems engineering documents.
Organization-defined parameters
These values must be resolved through the organization’s tailoring and governance process. Bracketed parameter references in the control text identify where a decision is required.
From control text to operational evidence
Use Concept of Operations as a testable risk decision. Translate the official statement into accountable people, repeatable processes, configured technology, and evidence that demonstrates the outcome over time. In this family, pay particular attention to security and privacy planning, architecture, rules of behavior, and lifecycle alignment.
Implementation workflow
- Define the control boundary, responsible owner, inherited portions, and systems or processes in scope.
- Resolve each organization-defined parameter before declaring the control implemented.
- Document how the implementation satisfies every clause of the official control statement.
- Collect evidence as a normal byproduct of operation rather than only before an assessment.
- Review exceptions, changes, and monitoring results on a risk-based cadence.
Evidence examples
- system security and privacy plans
- architecture and data-flow diagrams
- rules-of-behavior acknowledgments
- plan review and approval records
Common failure patterns
- plans copied from templates without system specificity
- diagrams that do not match deployed services
- inherited controls claimed without provider evidence
- plans updated only before assessment
Questions practitioners should ask
- What risk decision is this control intended to support in this system?
- Which parts are implemented locally, inherited, shared, or not applicable—and what evidence supports that decision?
- Do the documented narrative, deployed configuration, operating process, and collected evidence agree?
- What event or threshold requires the implementation to be reviewed or changed?
Assessment objectives and methods
Show the assessment objective
- PL-07a.a CONOPS for the system describing how the organization intends to operate the system from the perspective of information security and privacy is developed;
- PL-07b.the CONOPS is reviewed and updated [Organization-defined: frequency].
Examine
- Security and privacy planning policy
- procedures addressing security and privacy CONOPS development
- procedures addressing security and privacy CONOPS reviews and updates
- security and privacy CONOPS for the system
- system security plan
- privacy plan
- records of security and privacy CONOPS reviews and updates
- other relevant documents or records
Interview
- Organizational personnel with security and privacy planning and plan implementation responsibilities
- organizational personnel with information security and privacy responsibilities
Test
- Organizational processes for developing, reviewing, and updating the security CONOPS
- mechanisms supporting and/or implementing the development, review, and update of the security CONOPS
Related controls
These relationships come from the official OSCAL catalog. They indicate useful dependencies or context, not automatic inheritance or equivalence.
Authoritative sources
Bare Metal Cyber is an independent educational publisher and is not affiliated with or endorsed by NIST. Official control requirements and interpretations remain with NIST and the responsible authorizing organization.