CCSFP Exam Dumps - HITRUST CSF Practitioner Questions and Answers

All three validated assessment types—e1, i1, and r2—evaluate controls considered core to cybersecurity hygiene, though at different levels of assurance. For example, e1 is a low-effort model focusing on essential hygiene, i1 is a moderate-assurance model, and r2 is a comprehensive, risk-based model. Requirement statement counts can vary depending on the regulatory and organizational factors selected during scoping. For instance, adding PCI-DSS or HIPAA will increase requirement counts across all types. All assessment types also require testing of implementation, since evidence of operational control performance is mandatory for validation. The incorrect option is C: r2 assessments always include all 19 domains, and so do e1 and i1 assessments. What differs is the number of requirement statements in each domain, not the domains themselves.

The HITRUST CSF integrates and harmonizes multiple authoritative sources and frameworks, including:

NIST SP 800-53 (security and privacy controls for federal systems).

ISO/IEC 27001/27002 (international information security management standards).

ISO 27799 (information security for healthcare).

HIPAA Omnibus Rule (U.S. healthcare privacy and security requirements).

NIST SP 800-37 (Risk Management Framework) is a methodology, not a control framework, so it is not included.

Extract Reference (HITRUST CSF Overview, CCSFP Guide [0005]):

The CSF integrates requirements from ISO, NIST, HIPAA, and other authoritative sources to create a unified control framework.

Correct responses: NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27799, ISO 27001/2, HIPAA Omnibus Rule.

The responsibility for defining the scope of an assessment lies with client management. The organization undergoing the assessment must identify which systems, applications, facilities, and business units are in scope. This decision is based on business objectives, regulatory requirements, contractual obligations, and the sensitivity of data being processed. External Assessors play a supporting role by reviewing scope decisions and ensuring they are reasonable and sufficient to meet assurance objectives. HITRUST does not define scope directly but requires that scope decisions be documented and defensible. An accurately defined scope ensures that the assessment reflects the organization’s risk exposure without omitting critical components. Mis-scoping can either undermine assurance or create unnecessary testing burden.

HITRUST Assurance Advisories (HAAs) are issued when necessary to communicate important updates, clarifications, or changes impacting the CSF Assurance Program. These advisories are not bound to a fixed schedule (monthly, quarterly, or annually), but rather published as needed.

Extract Reference (HITRUST CSF Assurance Program, CCSFP Content [0167]):

There is no formal schedule for issuing HITRUST Assurance Advisories; they are published on an as-needed basis to communicate relevant updates.

Correct response: There is no formal schedule.

When an entity submits an assessment to their External Assessor, the responses are locked to preserve the integrity of the submission. However, changes can still be made if the assessor reverts a Requirement Statement back to the entity. This allows management to adjust responses, provide new evidence, or clarify details before the assessor finalizes validation. HITRUST itself does not revert requirement statements during the assessment phase, as that authority rests with the assessor. Once the assessment is submitted to HITRUST QA, responses cannot be modified. This process ensures proper control while still giving flexibility for corrections during the assessor review.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Assessors must maintain independence and avoid conflicts of interest.

If David assisted in remediating a gap, he cannot also validate the remediation, as that would compromise objectivity.

HITRUST requires separation of consulting/remediation support from assurance/validation activities.

Extract Reference (HITRUST CSF Assurance Program Independence Standards [0141]):

External Assessors may not validate remediation efforts they directly assisted in, to preserve independence.

HITRUST defines sample sizes for manual controls based on the frequency of operation. For controls that operate weekly, the required sample size is 5 items. This ensures that the assessor can evaluate consistency over multiple weeks without excessive burden. For example, if access logs are reviewed weekly, five weeks of logs must be tested. A higher frequency (e.g., daily controls) requires larger samples, such as 25. Conversely, less frequent controls (e.g., monthly or quarterly) may only require 2 or 1 sample. The structured sampling methodology provides consistency across assessments, ensures sufficient evidence for scoring, and prevents under-testing of critical controls.

During an interim assessment for r2 certifications, only a subset of Requirement Statements is retested. This sample is not determined manually by assessors or clients but is systematically generated by MyCSF. The tool ensures randomness and fairness while including mandatory items such as:

Requirement Statements with open gaps from the prior validated assessment.

Requirement Statements with active Corrective Action Plans (CAPs).

A random selection of additional requirements to confirm continued control performance.

This approach balances efficiency and assurance. It ensures that areas of previously identified weakness are re-examined while still sampling across the broader control set. By automating sample selection, HITRUST prevents bias and ensures consistency across interim reviews.

In an i1 assessment, scoring below threshold levels (generally 83 for certification-critical controls) results in a required Corrective Action Plan (CAP). A score of 37 falls into the “Somewhat Compliant” category and indicates major deficiencies. Because i1 assessments emphasize cybersecurity hygiene, HITRUST does not allow “risk acceptance” at such low scores. Instead, CAPs are required to ensure remediation is planned and tracked. This approach guarantees that organizations address weaknesses that could leave them vulnerable to common threats. Unlike r2 assessments, where some flexibility exists based on risk tailoring, i1 is structured to enforce mandatory remediation for below-threshold results. Therefore, a Control Reference score of 37 in i1 unequivocally requires a CAP.

HITRUST enforces strict evidence requirements to maintain credibility of assessment results. For Policy and Procedure maturity levels, if a score above 25% is claimed, the organization must link appropriate evidence (e.g., documented policies, standard operating procedures). For Implementation, Measured, and Managed, evidence must be provided whenever a score greater than 0% is claimed. This ensures that claims are supported by objective artifacts rather than assertions. Evidence can include policy documents, monitoring reports, logs, meeting minutes, or audit records. HITRUST QA verifies that evidence is linked to requirement statements at each maturity level. Without linked evidence, scores may be reduced or reverted during QA. This policy ensures transparency, accountability, and prevents overstatement of control effectiveness.