HITRUST Updated CCSFP Exam Questions and Answers by alora

If management decides to add new systems mid-assessment, the assessor must ensure the assessment scope and related requirement statements reflect the change. In MyCSF, this means two actions: first, reverting all completed Requirement Statements so that the client can review and adjust responses for any new control impacts. Second, the assessor must update the “Scope of the Assessment” tab to include the new systems. This ensures that MyCSF recalculates applicable requirements based on the expanded scope. Removing authoritative sources or requesting a Bridge Certificate would not address this situation, as authoritative sources are regulatory mappings and bridge certificates are only used to extend certifications temporarily.

When testing implementation, the population must include the full set of in-scope assets, not just a subset filtered by existing controls.

AV console (A) → only shows devices with AV installed; it would exclude noncompliant assets.

IT asset inventory (C) → provides the complete list of laptops, making it the proper source for random sample selection.

Risk register (D) → lists risks, not devices.

Capital assets only (B) → not comprehensive for all laptops.

Extract Reference (HITRUST Assessment Sampling Guidance, CCSFP [0173]):

Sampling must be based on the complete population from the IT asset inventory; reliance on control-based systems (e.g., AV console) introduces bias.

Marking a requirement statement “Not Applicable (N/A)” requires careful justification. In r2 assessments, compliance factors such as HIPAA, PCI-DSS, GDPR, or state-specific laws may trigger requirements that would not otherwise apply. Therefore, an assessor must verify that all compliance factors have been considered before permitting an N/A designation. For example, a requirement related to cardholder data might seem irrelevant unless PCI-DSS was selected as a compliance factor; in that case, it becomes mandatory. HITRUST QA scrutinizes N/A markings to ensure they are not misused to exclude applicable requirements. Incorrect use of N/A may result in CAPs or QA rejection. Thus, compliance factors must always be reviewed first to confirm whether the requirement is truly outside scope.

When scoring Measured and Managed maturity levels in HITRUST, evidence requirements are more rigorous. If these levels are scored above 50%, organizations must demonstrate that formal processes exist to measure control performance, that reports are generated to monitor effectiveness, and that accountability for measurement and management is assigned. Specifically:

Processes show how control gaps are tracked, risks mitigated, and remediation addressed.

Reports provide tangible outputs proving monitoring activities (e.g., audit logs, vulnerability reports).

Responsible individuals must be identified to show governance and ownership of measurement functions.

Organizational scoping factors, while important for tailoring requirements, do not serve as evidence of maturity scoring. HITRUST’s QA team requires this documentation to confirm that high maturity levels are not claimed without demonstrable evidence of ongoing monitoring and governance.