Framework: HITRUST

Cryptography governance prevents exposure by defining how encryption protects data consistently across environments. Without central governance, different teams pick different methods and tools, leaving gaps where unencrypted data can linger. Governance ensures that requirements are uniform: which data must be encrypted, how keys are handled, and what logs are maintained. It also defines escalation when controls fail, such as expired certificates or compromised keys. Strong governance prevents accidental exceptions from becoming systemic risks. A common example is an application team enabling encryption for new databases but leaving old backups in plaintext. Governance closes this gap by mandating periodic reviews and unified tooling. At the r2 level, auditors expect evidence that encryption practices are centrally defined, uniformly applied, and regularly validated for both technical strength and procedural control.

Data in transit protection ensures confidentiality and integrity during communication between systems, users, and third parties. At r2, this includes enforcing secure protocols like Transport Layer Security, disabling outdated versions, and using strong cipher suites. Policies must define where encryption is mandatory—such as email transmission, web sessions, or API calls—and how exceptions are justified. Certificate validation must be active, rejecting untrusted or expired credentials. Evidence includes configuration exports from web servers, mail gateways, and endpoint clients showing secure modes enabled. Regular vulnerability scans and protocol checks confirm enforcement. For instance, a secure mail relay using enforced TLS between domains demonstrates compliance. Protecting data in transit eliminates interception as a viable threat, maintaining trust across the communication landscape.

Data at rest encryption secures stored information against unauthorized access. Governance here mandates which systems, databases, and media require encryption and what methods are approved. Full disk encryption for endpoints, database-level encryption for structured data, and volume encryption for cloud storage all fall under these rules. Key separation between encrypted data and the management system is required. Audit logs must show encryption status and key usage. For example, storage encryption settings in a cloud platform should link to the key management system via unique identifiers. Periodic verification—like sample decryption tests or configuration scans—proves enforcement. At r2, auditors will ask not only “is it encrypted” but “can you prove it, and can you restore it safely.” Consistent encryption at rest ensures that stolen media remains useless to attackers.

Key management segregation of duties prevents a single person from controlling the full lifecycle of cryptographic keys. One group generates and distributes keys, another implements them, and a separate role monitors their use. This separation ensures that no individual can encrypt, access, and decrypt data alone. It also guards against insider threat and mistakes. Logs and access reviews confirm that administrative rights over key vaults are limited and periodically validated. Evidence includes access control lists, workflow approvals for key creation, and role definitions in key management systems. Segregation is one of the clearest indicators of governance maturity: it proves that protection is not a matter of trust in people but trust in process.

Key generation, storage, rotation, and destruction form the heartbeat of cryptographic control. Key generation must use approved algorithms and entropy sources to ensure unpredictability. Storage must occur in secured repositories or hardware modules, not shared drives or configuration files. Rotation schedules align with policy—often annually or upon personnel changes—and must be logged. Key destruction requires verifiable deletion or overwriting once keys expire or are replaced. Evidence includes system exports showing key status, logs of rotation events, and destruction certificates for retired keys. Each stage must be traceable and repeatable. In r2 assessments, missing rotation logs or unverified destruction records are red flags. Reliable lifecycle management is what turns cryptography from static configuration into controlled security practice.

Certificate lifecycle governance covers issuance, renewal, and revocation. Certificates underpin encrypted communications, and failure to manage them causes outages or trust breakdowns. Policies must define approved certificate authorities, naming conventions, validity periods, and renewal intervals. Automated monitoring should detect approaching expirations and trigger alerts well in advance. Revocation must occur quickly when a private key is compromised or a service is retired. Evidence includes certificate inventory exports, renewal tickets, and revocation logs. A mature program maintains complete visibility—no unknown or expired certificates remain in production. In r2, auditors interpret active lifecycle management as a direct sign of operational maturity and reliability.

Secrets management outside code repositories protects keys, tokens, and credentials from accidental exposure. Storing secrets in version control systems or plaintext configuration files is a recurring source of breaches. A mature program uses dedicated vaults or cloud key services that issue time-bound tokens or environment variables at runtime. Access is controlled through identity management and logged for every retrieval. Periodic scans of code repositories for exposed secrets verify that controls are effective. Assessors reviewing r2 evidence expect proof that secrets live in governed vaults, not developer workstations. Proper secrets management bridges security and software development, ensuring governance extends into continuous integration and deployment pipelines.

Incident response for key compromise must be defined, rehearsed, and documented. A compromised key can invalidate multiple layers of protection, so response must be swift and coordinated. The plan should specify detection methods, revocation procedures, system re-encryption requirements, and notification obligations. Assign roles for decision-making and communication, including customer and regulator notifications when required. Practice the process through tabletop exercises and record lessons learned. Evidence includes the response plan, exercise results, and real incident logs if applicable. For r2, this demonstrates readiness, not just resilience—the capacity to recover cryptographic trust without chaos.

Reliable and well-governed cryptography is the outcome of policy, process, and proof working in harmony. Define clear standards, enforce them through automated tooling, segregate duties, and track every key and certificate through its life. Use approved algorithms, protect secrets outside code, monitor continuously, and plan for compromise before it happens. Treat cryptography as a living program, not a collection of settings. At the r2 level, this maturity shows that confidentiality, integrity, and trust are not abstract values but managed assets—visible, verifiable, and essential to sustaining assurance across every layer of the environment.