Common Controls That Satisfy Multiple Frameworks
Or How One Good Control Can Calm Five Auditors at Once
Every security professional eventually discovers a universal truth. Auditors multiply faster than rabbits, and each one arrives with a different framework, a different checklist, and the same confident smile. One asks about ISO 27001. Another wants SOC 2. A third casually mentions PCI DSS. Someone in the back whispers NIST. This is when people assume compliance means building everything five times.
It does not.
The secret is common controls, the quiet overachievers of the compliance world. These are the controls that show up everywhere, wearing different names, asking the same questions, and judging you with the same intensity. Implemented well, they satisfy multiple frameworks without requiring multiple nervous breakdowns.
Access control is the most famous example. Every framework wants to know who can access what and why. They care about least privilege, separation of duties, and whether access is reviewed periodically by someone who is awake. Whether you call it ISO, SOC, PCI, or NIST, they all agree that “everyone is an admin” is not a valid strategy.
Strong identity governance checks a lot of boxes at once. Centralized authentication, role-based access, periodic access reviews, and timely offboarding make auditors across frameworks nod approvingly. They may use different words, but they all want the same outcome: no mystery accounts and no eternal access.
Logging and monitoring is another crowd favorite. Every framework expects systems to record what happened, when it happened, and who did it. They also expect someone to actually look at those logs occasionally. A centralized logging solution with alerting, retention, and review procedures can satisfy security monitoring requirements across the board. It also helps when something breaks, which auditors seem oddly fond of asking about.
Incident response is where frameworks suddenly sound emotional. They want to know that you can detect incidents, respond to them, contain them, and learn from them. They also want evidence that you have practiced this and not just written it down optimistically. A well-documented and tested incident response plan tends to make multiple auditors happy at the same time, which is a rare and beautiful thing.
Change management quietly supports almost everything. Frameworks want to know that systems do not change randomly, even though everyone knows they sometimes do. Documented change processes, approvals, testing, and rollback plans demonstrate control and maturity. Auditors from different frameworks may ask different questions, but they all want reassurance that chaos is not the default operating mode.
Risk management is the philosophical glue. ISO is particularly fond of it, but other frameworks appreciate it too. Identifying risks, evaluating impact, and tracking mitigation efforts show that security decisions are intentional. Risk registers have a way of satisfying auditors who might otherwise argue about details, because they show awareness and ownership.
Vendor management is another shared obsession. Frameworks want to know that you do not blindly trust third parties with your data. Assessing vendors, reviewing contracts, and monitoring risk over time addresses supply chain concerns across multiple standards. Auditors like knowing that someone asked questions before signing things.
The magic of common controls is not that they reduce work. It is that they reduce duplication. Instead of building separate controls for each framework, organizations can design controls that are broad, strong, and adaptable. One access review process can feed multiple audits. One logging system can generate multiple reports. One incident response exercise can satisfy multiple expectations.
The trap is implementation. Common controls only work when they are real. A policy that exists but is not followed satisfies no one. A control that works in theory but not in practice becomes an audit story, and not the good kind.
Organizations that succeed with multiple frameworks treat controls as part of how they operate, not something they perform for auditors. The evidence becomes a byproduct of doing things correctly, not a frantic scavenger hunt before an audit.
In the end, compliance frameworks are less different than they appear. They ask the same questions in different accents. Common controls are the universal translators.
Build them well, operate them consistently, and you will discover the rare joy of answering five audit questions with one confident response.
Which is as close to compliance happiness as anyone ever gets.