Skip to content

MyCSF

JUMP TO ANOTHER FORUM

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback

39 results found

  1. Unable to save the progress after uploading the documents.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  2. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  3. Please automate the countersignature from HITRUST of the validated report agreement, subscriber should not have to wait 48 hours or more for this to be countersigned.

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  4. break out the evaluative elements with a checkblock for completion. Also, add the ability for evaluative elements to be assigned to different users.

    3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  5. Upon review of sample testing required for a v9.5 assessment, I noticed that quite a few controls have illustrative procedures that state "select a sample of . . .", however when you look in MyCSF the control requirement, they don't have the "Implemented: Sampling" flag. Is there a plan to ensure the flag is evident for all control requirements in MyCSF that require sample testing per IP?

    5 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  6. It would be helpful to partially unlock the specific items/areas that QA has assigned tasks to post submission. Currently, we have to request help from the support team and it prolongs the process of QA unnecessarily.

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  7. Currently, if we want to maintain our annual reassessment date, we need to submit our assessment on that specific date (i.e., we cannot submit an assessment earlier if it is ready). We should be able to submit at any point and mark the date of the submission, or simply keep the annual assessment date unless a different date is requested.

    9 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  8. 5 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  9. For timesheets and QA Sheets - it would be best to have this done electronically. Especially since we are remote - it's easier to have Executive and QA use the same document and electronically sign/initial.

    4 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  10. Add a checkbox or field for external reviewers to sign off on requirement statement after they have reviewed them.

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  11. Remove edit check that requires client to upload a rep letter in order to submit a domain to the assessor. This is too early in the process to provide a rep letter - currently, clients must upload a fake / placeholder document as a workaround.

    4 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  12. for N/A requirements, change to a single "agree with N/A"

    8 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  13. There are times when the addition of assessor team quality review pushes past the 90-day window. We get backlogged the same way you do. We always adhere to the 90-day window for accepting and reviewing evidence, and we can demonstrate that reasonably. But it would be helpful if there was some flexibility around the submission date. If we plug in the real dates of assessment, and then submit 91 days after we started testing, the system errors due to >90.

    Introducing the notion of the defined assessment window of 90 days, and the CHQP review period (stated dates) might help…

    3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  14. There needs to be a half-way point between the requirement statement and domain level for delegating responsibilities. It would be nice to have the ability to select multiple requirement statements within a domain and then delegate those statements rather than completing each one individually.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  15. delegation percentage graph

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  16. show indication of who entered customer scoring- customer or internal assessor

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  17. Provide assessors the ability to revert entire domains back to clients- even if the feature was only available when the status of the domain is "assessor review pending". This would avoid needing to request HITRUST to revert domains if clients accidentally hit submit too early.

    8 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  18. It would be great if there was an option to sort/filter requirements based on the Unique ID, not just the level or control.

    31 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  19. Capability that allows a user to submit a reverted Question to their External Assessor without waiting for the Domain and/or Assessment to be completed.

    10 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  20. HITRUST's guidance allows zero-population requirements to be scored at fully compliant on the implemented level IF a well-defined policy and procedure exists for the assessed entity to observe should the related activity occur. However, MyCSF doesn't currently do a good job of allowing assessed entities and assessors to efficiently communicate this scenario. Because MyCSF requires that evidence be linked to a scored implemented PRISMA level, assessors are often forced to tag the policy or procedure documents to the implemented PRISMA level in this scenario. To remedy, MyCSF should offer a flag (e.g., a checkbox) which can be used to communicate…

    10 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
← Previous 1
  • Don't see your idea?