CP 7(1) Separation From Primary Site

---
name: "CP-7(1)_separation-from-primary-site"
description: "Identify an alternate processing site that is sufficiently separated from the primary processing site to reduce susceptibility to the same threats."
category: "configuration"
version: "5.2.0"
author: "cyberstrike-official"
tags:
  - nist
  - sp800-53
  - rev5
  - cp-7-1
  - cp
  - enhancement
tech_stack:
  - aws
  - azure
  - gcp
cwe_ids: []
chains_with:
  - RA-3
prerequisites:
  - CP-7
severity_boost:
  RA-3: "Chain with RA-3 for comprehensive security coverage"
---

# CP-7(1) Separation from Primary Site

> **Enhancement of:** CP-7

## High-Level Description

**Family:** Contingency Planning (CP)
**Framework:** NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5

Threats that affect alternate processing sites are defined in organizational assessments of risk and include natural disasters, structural failures, hostile attacks, and errors of omission or commission. Organizations determine what is considered a sufficient degree of separation between primary and alternate processing sites based on the types of threats that are of concern. For threats such as hostile attacks, the degree of separation between sites is less relevant.

## What to Check

- [ ] Verify CP-7(1) Separation from Primary Site is documented in SSP
- [ ] Confirm control is operating effectively
- [ ] Review evidence of continuous monitoring for CP-7(1)
- [ ] Verify enhancement builds upon base control CP-7

## How to Test

### Step 1: Review Documentation

Examine the System Security Plan (SSP) and related artifacts for CP-7(1) implementation details. Verify the organization has documented how this control is satisfied.

### Step 2: Validate Implementation

```
# For cloud environments, use cloud-audit-mcp tools
# For on-premises, review system configurations directly

# Example: Check if account management policies exist
grep -r "account.management\|access.control" /etc/security/ 2>/dev/null
```

### Step 3: Test Operating Effectiveness

Verify the control is actively functioning, not just documented. Check logs, configurations, and operational evidence.

## Tools

| Tool          | Purpose                           | Usage |
| ------------- | --------------------------------- | ----- |
| Manual Review | Documentation and interview-based | N/A   |

## Remediation Guide

### Control Statement

Identify an alternate processing site that is sufficiently separated from the primary processing site to reduce susceptibility to the same threats.

### Implementation Guidance

Threats that affect alternate processing sites are defined in organizational assessments of risk and include natural disasters, structural failures, hostile attacks, and errors of omission or commission. Organizations determine what is considered a sufficient degree of separation between primary and alternate processing sites based on the types of threats that are of concern. For threats such as hostile attacks, the degree of separation between sites is less relevant.

## Risk Assessment

| Finding                                              | Severity | Impact                          |
| ---------------------------------------------------- | -------- | ------------------------------- |
| CP-7(1) Separation from Primary Site not implemented | Medium   | Contingency Planning            |
| CP-7(1) partially implemented                        | Low      | Incomplete Contingency Planning |

## CWE Categories

| CWE ID | Title                 |
| ------ | --------------------- |
| N/A    | No direct CWE mapping |

## References

- [NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 - CP-7(1)](https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cprt/catalog#/cprt/framework/version/SP_800_53_5_1_1/home?element=cp-7.1)
- [NIST SP 800-53A Rev 5 (Assessment Procedures)](https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/53/a/r5/final)
- [NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 Full Catalog](https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/53/r5/upd1/final)

## Checklist

- [ ] Control documented in SSP
- [ ] Implementation evidence collected
- [ ] Operating effectiveness validated
- [ ] Continuous monitoring in place
- [ ] Related controls (RA-3) reviewed