COSO Principle 7 — The entity identifies risks to the achievement of its objectives and analyzes them as a basis for determining how they should be managed.
Also written as CC 3.2, TSC CC3.2, SOC2 CC3.2, SOC 2 Type 2 CC3.2.
Risk identification and analysis is one of 4 criteria in the Risk Assessment (CC3) series of the Security (Common Criteria) category. COSO Principle 7 — The entity identifies risks to the achievement of its objectives and analyzes them as a basis for determining how they should be managed. CC3 evidence is your risk assessment itself — auditors check that it is current, that it considers fraud, and that identified risks visibly drive the controls tested elsewhere in the report.
When preparing for a SOC 2 audit against CC3.2, gather artefacts such as:
CC3.2 corresponds to the following ISO 27001:2022 Annex A control(s): A.5.6, A.5.7, A.5.9. If you already run an ISO 27001 ISMS, map your existing evidence for these controls to CC3.2 rather than duplicating work.
Yes. CC3.2 sits in the Common Criteria, which apply to every SOC 2 engagement regardless of which additional categories you scope in — there is no SOC 2 report that omits them.
In a Type 1 report the auditor assesses design only — does a control exist at a point in time that would meet CC3.2 if it operated. In a Type 2 report they also test operating effectiveness by sampling evidence from across the review period, typically 3 to 12 months. That difference is why Type 2 evidence has to be continuous rather than assembled the week before fieldwork.
A control that fails becomes an exception, which the auditor describes in the report along with management's response. Exceptions do not automatically make a report "failed" — a SOC 2 report is an opinion, not a pass/fail certificate — but a qualified opinion is what customers notice, so remediate and re-test before fieldwork closes where you can.
Yes — CC3.2 aligns with ISO 27001:2022 Annex A control(s) A.5.6, A.5.7, A.5.9. If you already run a certified ISMS, re-point that evidence rather than building a parallel set; the underlying control is the same and only the reporting format differs.