Certified: The Security+ Prepcast

In the first part of our series on effective compliance monitoring, we focused on due diligence, due care, and the value of attestation and acknowledgement. Today, in Part Two, we expand the discussion to cover two more pillars of compliance oversight: the integration of internal and external monitoring and the growing use of automation in compliance programs. These components help organizations create a continuous compliance environment—where expectations are met not just once, but every day.
Let’s begin with internal and external monitoring. These two forms of oversight are most effective when they work together in a coordinated way. Internal monitoring focuses on evaluating compliance from within the organization—often through internal audits, risk assessments, or policy reviews. External monitoring is driven by third parties—such as regulatory agencies, external auditors, or industry certifiers—who assess the organization’s practices against defined standards.
Internal audits are usually scheduled on a recurring basis, often quarterly or annually. They are conducted by a dedicated internal audit team, the security department, or a compliance officer. These audits review how well the organization adheres to its own policies, as well as to external requirements. The findings are used to inform leadership, guide remediation efforts, and prepare for formal regulatory inspections.
External audits, on the other hand, bring in an outside perspective. These are often tied to specific regulatory frameworks like the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or International Organization for Standardization twenty-seven thousand one. External auditors test controls, interview staff, examine records, and issue compliance reports or certifications. These reports are shared with customers, regulators, or business partners and serve as proof of compliance.
The key to success is not treating these two efforts as separate projects. Instead, organizations should align their internal audits with the expectations of external auditors. This means using similar frameworks, maintaining consistent documentation, and running internal readiness assessments before official audits. When internal and external monitoring are synchronized, the organization stays audit-ready all year long—not just in the weeks leading up to a visit.
Let’s look at a real-world example. A regional bank is preparing for an external review by financial regulators. Six months in advance, its internal audit team conducts a gap analysis based on the regulator’s published criteria. They simulate audit interviews, verify documentation, and evaluate controls. Their internal findings are used to update policies, retrain staff, and fix technical vulnerabilities. When the external audit begins, the bank is well-prepared. As a result, the regulators issue a clean report with no findings. This outcome was possible because internal and external monitoring were aligned, proactive, and collaborative.
This coordination also builds credibility. When an external auditor sees that the organization performs thorough internal reviews, maintains audit trails, and responds quickly to findings, it signals maturity. It shows that compliance is part of the organizational culture—not just a box to check.
Another benefit of integrating internal and external monitoring is efficiency. Many of the same documents, logs, and metrics used for internal reviews can be reused in external audits. That means less duplication of effort, faster responses, and lower costs. It also helps reduce audit fatigue among teams who are asked to support multiple reviews each year.
Some organizations go even further by inviting external experts to participate in internal reviews. These hybrid models bring the best of both worlds—real-world experience from outside, combined with deep operational knowledge from inside. It also prepares staff to respond confidently during formal external assessments.
Now let’s move to the second focus of today’s episode: automating compliance processes. In today’s fast-moving environments, manual compliance tracking simply is not enough. Too many systems, users, and regulatory requirements make it nearly impossible to manage compliance using spreadsheets and paper checklists. That’s where automation comes in.
Automating compliance processes means using software and tools to continuously monitor systems, collect evidence, generate reports, and alert teams when controls are out of alignment. These tools help organizations detect issues faster, respond more consistently, and maintain real-time visibility into their compliance posture.
Common use cases for compliance automation include monitoring access controls, detecting unpatched systems, reviewing security logs, enforcing password policies, and validating encryption settings. Automation platforms can pull data from systems across the organization—servers, cloud services, endpoints, firewalls, and more—and compare that data against compliance benchmarks.
Let’s consider a practical example. A healthcare technology company is responsible for managing protected health information. To ensure compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the company deploys an automated compliance monitoring tool. The tool scans their cloud infrastructure daily, checking for unauthorized ports, misconfigured identity and access management roles, and unencrypted storage volumes. It also generates a weekly report for leadership and flags critical findings for immediate remediation. Thanks to automation, the company is able to maintain visibility, reduce manual workload, and respond quickly when controls drift out of alignment.
Automation is especially valuable for continuous compliance programs—where the goal is not just passing audits, but staying compliant at all times. Continuous monitoring helps detect issues the moment they happen, not weeks later during an annual review. This early detection improves response times and lowers risk.
Another benefit of automation is audit readiness. When it’s time for an external review, all the data is already collected and organized. Many compliance platforms include prebuilt templates for industry standards, making it easier to generate reports, pull documentation, and demonstrate control effectiveness. This streamlines the audit process and reduces the burden on internal teams.
Automation also supports scalability. As organizations grow, the number of systems, users, and policies increases. Manually checking access logs or configuration settings across hundreds of devices is simply not practical. Automation allows organizations to scale their compliance efforts without constantly adding headcount.
That said, automation is not a silver bullet. It must be implemented thoughtfully. Automated tools should be configured with care, tested regularly, and aligned with real-world policies. False positives must be filtered, and alerts must be routed to the right teams with clear response plans. Over-automating without planning can lead to alert fatigue, system conflicts, or missed priorities.
Let’s walk through another scenario. A multinational retailer uses a compliance dashboard to track requirements for the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard. The dashboard pulls data from their payment systems and alerts the team if devices fall out of scope or if encryption standards are downgraded. During a quarterly board meeting, the dashboard shows a trend of decreasing risk scores across business units. This data helps leadership understand progress and supports budget requests for additional security investments. Here, automation is not just about efficiency—it’s about enabling smarter decisions.
Finally, automation enables reporting consistency. One of the most common audit challenges is inconsistent documentation. Automated tools help standardize logs, format evidence, and maintain version control. This consistency builds trust with auditors and supports internal communication across departments.
As you prepare for the Security Plus exam, expect questions about the value of internal versus external monitoring, and the role of automation in continuous compliance. You may see a scenario where an organization is trying to reduce audit prep time, monitor system misconfigurations, or align internal assessments with regulatory requirements.
Here’s a study tip. If the scenario focuses on reviewing internal controls, think internal monitoring. If it involves third-party oversight, certifications, or formal audits, it’s external monitoring. If the question mentions tools, dashboards, or automated alerts, it’s pointing toward compliance automation. Watch for those key terms to guide your answer.
For downloadable audit planning templates, automation tool reviews, and internal audit checklists, visit us at Bare Metal Cyber dot com. And for the most focused and complete Security Plus study guide available, head over to Cyber Author dot me and get your copy of Achieve CompTIA Security Plus S Y Zero Dash Seven Zero One Exam Success.