Skip to main content
International ISMS standard

What is ISO 27001 Awareness Training

ISO 27001:2022 names security awareness as Annex A control 6.3 and ties it to two mandatory ISMS clauses on competence and awareness. Certification bodies want per-employee, role-based evidence on a three-year cycle, and the most common nonconformity in the entire standard sits in this control area.

By Last reviewed

ISO 27001:2022 makes security awareness a named Annex A control

ISO/IEC 27001 is the international standard for information security management systems (ISMS). It defines the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an ISMS, and it pairs with ISO/IEC 27002 for control implementation guidance. Certification is issued by an accredited body (BSI, DNV, Bureau Veritas, SGS, Schellman, Coalfire ISO, A-LIGN ISO) on a three-year cycle: Stage 1 readiness, Stage 2 certification audit, surveillance audits in years 1 and 2, then a recertification audit in year 3. The standard applies to any organization in any industry, which is why it sits behind most enterprise procurement requirements globally.

The 2022 revision restructured Annex A from 114 controls into 93 controls across four themes (organizational, people, physical, technological), and the transition deadline from 27001:2013 closed on 31 October 2025. Awareness moved from the old A.7.2.2 control into the new A.6.3, which is now titled "Information security awareness, education and training." This is no longer guidance buried in an annex paragraph. It is a named control that auditors test in every Stage 2 and surveillance visit, against every employee in scope.

Three sections of the standard interlock to govern training. Clause 7.2 (Competence) requires the organization to determine the necessary competence for people doing work that affects information security performance, ensure that competence through training, and retain documented evidence. Clause 7.3 (Awareness) requires that all persons doing work under the organization's control are aware of the information security policy, their contribution to ISMS effectiveness, and the implications of not conforming. Annex A 6.3 sits underneath both as the operational control: a program that delivers awareness, education, and training to all employees, and updates it regularly in line with policy and relevant threats.

The most common nonconformity in this control area is a gap in per-employee evidence. The training deck exists, the LMS shows aggregate completion, but the auditor cannot pull a named record for a specific contractor hired in March or a finance analyst in the German subsidiary. Surveillance audit findings here typically open as minor nonconformities with 30 to 60 days to remediate. A repeated finding, or a finding that touches a missing role-based program for a critical job family, can escalate to major and put the certificate at risk.

How ISO 27001 governs information security awareness and training

1

ISMS scope and Statement of Applicability

The ISMS scope statement defines which business units, locations, services, and systems sit inside the certificate boundary. The Statement of Applicability (SoA) lists every Annex A control, marks each as applicable or not, and justifies any exclusions. A.6.3 is almost never excluded, because every ISMS has people inside its scope. The SoA is the auditor's map: it tells the certification body which controls to test and which evidence to request. Awareness training evidence has to cover every person inside the documented scope, not just headquarters staff.

2

Annex A 6.3 plus Clauses 7.2 and 7.3 control hierarchy

Clause 7.3 (Awareness) is the broad requirement: every person doing work under the organization's control must be aware of the policy, their contribution, and the consequences of nonconformity. Clause 7.2 (Competence) goes deeper for roles where information security performance depends on specific skills (security engineers, system administrators, developers, incident responders). Annex A 6.3 is the operational control that delivers both: a documented program with content, cadence, role-based assignments, and retained records. An auditor will trace from the policy through the SoA to the program design, then sample evidence at the employee level.

3

Role-based competence by job function

ISO 27001 does not prescribe content. It requires that the training is appropriate for the role and that competence is verifiable. Practical implementation usually means a baseline awareness program for everyone (policy acknowledgment, phishing, acceptable use, incident reporting) plus role-based modules for job families with elevated information security responsibilities. Finance and AP get invoice fraud and BEC. Engineering gets secure coding and access management. Help desk gets vishing and MFA reset pretexts. Executives get whaling and deepfake video. The role mapping should be documented, often as a RACI matrix tied to the SoA, so the auditor can trace why each role gets the modules it gets.

4

Documented evidence pack for the certification body

Auditors do not accept "we ran the training." They want documented evidence that names the person, the module, the date completed, the assessment score (if applicable), and the signed policy acknowledgment. The evidence pack typically includes the program plan, the role-based assignment matrix, an LMS export showing per-employee completion across the certification scope, phishing simulation results, awareness-campaign artifacts (newsletters, posters, town-hall slides), and a register of new joiner and contractor onboarding completions. The pack has to cover the full audit period, which is 12 months for surveillance and 3 years for recertification.

5

Audit cycle from Stage 1 readiness to recertification

Stage 1 is a readiness check: the auditor reviews documentation, confirms the ISMS exists on paper, and identifies gaps before Stage 2. Stage 2 is the certification audit: on-site (or remote) sampling of evidence across all clauses and applicable Annex A controls, including A.6.3. If passed, the certificate is issued for three years. Surveillance audits in year 1 and year 2 sample a subset of controls (A.6.3 is almost always sampled). Recertification in year 3 is a full audit again. Nonconformities in awareness training open at Stage 2, recur at surveillance, and can block recertification if uncorrected.

6

The 27001:2022 transition and what changed for awareness

The 2013 standard listed awareness training as A.7.2.2 inside the Human Resource Security domain. The 2022 standard moved it to A.6.3 inside the People controls theme and rewrote the control text to make the program requirement explicit: it must be planned, established, implemented, and maintained, and it must be updated regularly in line with the information security policy and the relevant topical policies. The transition deadline from 27001:2013 was 31 October 2025; certificates against the old standard are no longer valid. Organizations that completed transition still need to confirm that their awareness program references A.6.3, not the legacy A.7.2.2, in the SoA and the program documentation.

Real ISO 27001 audit nonconformities tied to awareness gaps

Stage 2 audit failure on missing per-employee training records

A common Stage 2 failure pattern: the organization presents an awareness deck and an LMS dashboard showing 92% aggregate completion. The auditor samples 15 employees from the HRIS, including 3 contractors hired in the previous 90 days and 2 staff in a recently acquired subsidiary. Two contractors have no training record at all and one acquisition employee has no signed policy acknowledgment. The finding opens as a minor nonconformity against Clause 7.3 and Annex A 6.3, with a 60-day remediation window. Until the corrective action is closed and accepted, the certificate is not issued, which typically delays customer-facing milestones (RFPs, vendor onboarding, renewal cycles) that are gated on the ISO 27001 logo.

Surveillance audit major on missing role-based training for new joiners

A second-year surveillance audit pattern: the auditor samples joiners across the prior 12 months and finds that engineering hires received the baseline awareness module but no role-specific training on secure coding or access management, despite the SoA marking A.8.28 (secure coding) and A.5.18 (access rights) as applicable. The auditor escalates to a major nonconformity because the gap is systemic, the role family is critical to the ISMS, and the organization cannot demonstrate Clause 7.2 competence for staff doing work that affects information security performance. Major nonconformities require corrective action acceptance before the certificate continues; in the worst cases the certificate is suspended pending a special audit.

Recertification setback when phishing-specific exercises are absent

A recertification audit pattern: the awareness program covers policy, acceptable use, and incident reporting, but the auditor asks how the organization addresses phishing as the most common initial-access vector and finds no phishing-specific exercises, no simulation results, and no reporting metrics. The auditor cites A.6.3's requirement that the program be updated regularly in line with relevant threats, and opens a finding that requires evidence of a phishing exercise program with role-based scenarios and tracked results. Recertification is not blocked outright, but the organization is given 90 days to produce a corrective action plan; failure to deliver risks loss of certification and the customer contracts that depend on it.

How RansomLeak satisfies ISO 27001 awareness and training requirements

A.6.3: Information security awareness, education and training program

RansomLeak delivers the operational control directly. Every learner runs scenario-based exercises tied to the policy, the SoA, and the threat landscape, with per-employee completion records, assessment scores, and timestamps exported to the LMS or the GRC system. The program runs continuously rather than annually, which satisfies the "updated regularly" requirement in the control text and produces fresh evidence for every surveillance audit.

Clause 7.3: Awareness of policy, contribution, and nonconformity

The introductory exercises (ISMS Policy Awareness, Employee Security Responsibilities) cover the three required elements explicitly: the information security policy, each person's contribution to ISMS effectiveness, and the implications of not conforming. Completion records map directly to the Clause 7.3 evidence the auditor samples.

Clause 7.2: Competence for roles affecting information security

Role-based assignment maps job families to the modules that build the competence needed for that role. Engineers get secure coding and access management. Finance gets invoice fraud and BEC. Help desk gets vishing and MFA reset pretexts. The mapping is documented and the per-role evidence pack supports the Clause 7.2 traceability the auditor expects.

A.5.10: Acceptable use of information and other associated assets

The Internet & Email Acceptable Use exercise drills the policy boundary in real workflows: shadow IT, personal device handling, sensitive document transfer, and acceptable use violations. Completion provides direct evidence that staff have been trained on the rules they are expected to follow.

A.5.14: Information transfer

The Secure Messaging Practices and Cloud Sharing Controls exercises cover the secure transfer requirement: which channels are approved for which data classes, how to share files externally without breaking the SoA, and how to use messaging platforms without leaking confidential information. Both modules carry per-employee records into the audit pack.

A.5.24: Information security incident management planning and preparation

The Security Incident Response exercise puts learners inside a real incident: spotting the indicator, escalating through the right channel, preserving evidence, and supporting the response team. The control text requires that the organization plans, prepares, and trains for incident management; the exercise produces both the training evidence and the preparedness evidence.

A.8.7: Protection against malware

The Phishing, Spear Phishing, Double Barrel Phishing, and Ransomware exercises cover the human side of malware protection: how attackers deliver payloads through email and chat, how to spot and report the lure, and what to do after a click. Combined with technical EDR controls, this satisfies the part of A.8.7 that depends on user behavior.

A.8.3: Information access restriction (least privilege and JML)

The Least Privilege Awareness and Joiner-Mover-Leaver Awareness exercises drill the human side of the access control framework: requesting only what is needed, returning access on role change, and confirming offboarding completion. The evidence supports both A.8.3 and A.5.18 in the SoA traceability.

How RansomLeak makes the ISO 27001 awareness program audit-ready

ISO 27001 auditors test programs against scenario fidelity, not module count. Recorded videos and click-through quizzes produce completion records but they do not produce evidence that the learner can act on the policy under realistic pressure. RansomLeak runs immersive, scenario-based exercises that drop the learner inside a simulated inbox, phone call, vendor portal, or video conference, and force a real decision against the policy text. When the auditor asks how the organization addresses Annex A 6.3's requirement that training be relevant and updated against current threats, the program shows scenario assets, threat-mapped content, and behavior data, not slide decks from three years ago.

Role-based assignments map cleanly onto the SoA traceability the auditor walks. Baseline awareness goes to every person inside the ISMS scope, including contractors and third parties wherever they hold an account or handle information assets. Role-specific modules go to the job families where the SoA marks elevated controls as applicable: finance and AP get invoice fraud, BEC, and deepfake-wire scenarios; engineering gets secure coding and AI prompt injection patterns; IT and help desk get vishing and MFA reset pretexts; executives and their assistants get whaling and deepfake video; new joiners and movers are assigned the right module set automatically inside the first week. The assignment matrix is exportable as documented evidence for Clause 7.2 competence.

The export pack is built for the certification body checklist. Per-employee completion records (name, module, date, score, signed acknowledgment) export from the platform into Cornerstone, Workday Learning, Docebo, SAP SuccessFactors, or any standards-compliant LMS through SCORM 1.2 and SCORM 2004 packages. Aggregate metrics (program coverage by role, refresh cadence, phishing simulation reporting rate) export as the auditor-friendly dashboards that surveillance auditors review. The result is a Clause 7 and A.6.3 evidence pack that holds up to any sampling sweep, in any region of the certified scope.

What does ISO 27001 require for security awareness training?

ISO 27001 awareness training is the program that satisfies Annex A control 6.3 and ISMS Clauses 7.2 and 7.3 of the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 standard. A.6.3 names "Information security awareness, education and training" as a required control, and the two clauses bind it to documented competence and per-employee awareness evidence. The transition deadline from 27001:2013 closed on 31 October 2025, so all current certifications run against the 2022 control set with awareness in A.6.3 (formerly A.7.2.2).

Auditors from BSI, DNV, Bureau Veritas, SGS, Schellman, Coalfire ISO, and A-LIGN ISO sample per-employee records during Stage 2 certification, surveillance audits in years 1 and 2, and recertification in year 3. Missing records or absent role-based content opens a minor or major nonconformity with a 30 to 60 day remediation window. Awareness gaps are the most common control-area finding in the standard.

The fix is a continuously refreshed program with role-based assignments and per-employee evidence. Effective awareness training reduces breach costs by 23% in IBM and Ponemon Cost of a Data Breach research, and ties directly to the documented Clause 7.2 competence the auditor expects for every job family inside the ISMS scope.

Recommended exercises

Scenario-based simulations that satisfy this framework.

ISMS Policy Awareness

Direct evidence for Clause 7.3: the learner reads, navigates, and acknowledges the information security policy, producing the named record auditors sample.

Try the exercise

Employee Security Responsibilities

Covers the "contribution to ISMS effectiveness" element of Clause 7.3, with role-specific framing that supports Clause 7.2 competence traceability.

Try the exercise

Phishing

Closes the most common A.6.3 nonconformity at recertification: phishing-specific scenarios with reporting metrics that auditors expect against the "relevant threats" clause.

Try the exercise

Spear Phishing

Role-based detection drill for executives, finance, and engineering, supporting the differentiated Clause 7.2 competence the auditor expects across job families.

Try the exercise

Invoice & Payment Fraud

Finance and AP role-based module that supports the SoA mapping between A.6.3 awareness and the financial controls applicable to the in-scope entities.

Try the exercise

Security Incident Response

Direct support for A.5.24 incident management preparation: training evidence that staff know how to escalate, preserve evidence, and support the response team.

Try the exercise

Least Privilege Awareness

Human-side support for A.8.3 information access restriction: the policy text means little if staff request more than they need or hold legacy access after a role change.

Try the exercise

Joiner-Mover-Leaver Awareness

Closes the access lifecycle gap that surveillance auditors hit: clear evidence that staff understand the JML process and confirm offboarding completion.

Try the exercise

Frequently Asked Questions

What GRC and security leaders ask about this framework.

What is ISO 27001 Annex A 6.3?

Annex A 6.3 is the ISO 27001:2022 control titled "Information security awareness, education and training." It requires the organization to plan, establish, implement, and maintain an awareness, education, and training program for all employees, and to update it regularly in line with the information security policy and relevant topical policies.

It replaces the 2013 standard's A.7.2.2 control, which sat inside the Human Resource Security domain. The 2022 control sits inside the People controls theme and elevates the operational program from a paragraph in HR security into a named, separately auditable Annex A control.

Does ISO 27001 require security awareness training?

Yes, in three places. Clause 7.3 (Awareness) requires that every person doing work under the organization's control is aware of the information security policy, their contribution to ISMS effectiveness, and the implications of not conforming. Clause 7.2 (Competence) requires documented competence for roles whose work affects information security performance. Annex A 6.3 is the operational control that delivers both.

An auditor will check that the program exists, that it covers the people inside the ISMS scope (including contractors and third parties holding accounts), and that per-employee evidence is retained. Missing any of the three opens a nonconformity finding.

How often does ISO 27001 awareness training need to be refreshed?

The standard does not prescribe a fixed cadence. The control text in A.6.3 says the program must be updated "regularly," which auditors interpret in light of the information security policy, the threat landscape, and the topical policies referenced in the SoA. In practice, certification bodies expect at minimum an annual refresh for all staff plus event-driven updates when a new threat or policy change makes existing content out of date.

Best-in-class programs run continuously, with monthly role-based exercises and quarterly all-staff campaigns. The continuous model produces fresher evidence for every surveillance audit and reduces the nonconformity risk from the "updated regularly" clause.

What evidence do ISO 27001 auditors look for?

Auditors sample evidence at the employee level. The standard pack includes the awareness program plan, the role-based assignment matrix, signed policy acknowledgments, per-employee completion records (name, module, date, assessment score), phishing simulation results, awareness-campaign artifacts (newsletters, posters, town-hall slides), and a register of new joiner and contractor onboarding completions.

The pack has to cover the full audit period: 12 months for surveillance audits and 36 months for recertification. Aggregate completion rates do not satisfy the requirement. The auditor will sample named individuals across the ISMS scope, including contractors, third parties, and recent acquisitions, and ask for the records.

Stage 1 vs Stage 2 vs surveillance audits, what changes for training?

Stage 1 is a documentation review. The auditor confirms that the awareness program is documented, that it covers Annex A 6.3 and Clauses 7.2 and 7.3, and that the role-based assignment matrix exists. Findings at Stage 1 are usually around documentation gaps rather than evidence gaps.

Stage 2 is the certification audit. The auditor samples per-employee records across the full ISMS scope, tests the policy acknowledgment process, and validates that the program runs as documented. This is where most awareness-related nonconformities open.

Surveillance audits in years 1 and 2 sample a subset of controls. A.6.3 is almost always included because it is the most commonly failed control area in the entire standard. Recertification in year 3 is a full audit again, with the same scope as Stage 2.

What changed for awareness training between 27001:2013 and 27001:2022?

The 2013 standard listed awareness as control A.7.2.2 inside the Human Resource Security domain. The 2022 standard moved it to A.6.3 inside the new People controls theme and rewrote the control text to make the program requirement explicit: planned, established, implemented, maintained, and updated regularly in line with the information security policy and relevant topical policies.

The transition deadline from 27001:2013 closed on 31 October 2025. Organizations operating against an old certificate after that date are no longer ISO 27001 certified. The SoA, the program documentation, and the audit evidence pack all need to reference A.6.3, not the legacy A.7.2.2.

Do contractors and third parties need ISO 27001 training?

Yes. Clause 7.3 applies to "all persons doing work under the organization's control," which extends to contractors, agency staff, and third parties wherever they hold an account or handle information assets inside the ISMS scope. The contracting model does not reduce the requirement; the organization remains accountable for the awareness evidence.

Practical implementation usually assigns the baseline awareness module to every contractor on day one, with a signed policy acknowledgment, and tracks completion in the same LMS or GRC system that holds the employee records. Auditors sample contractor records on the same basis as employees, so missing one contractor is the same finding as missing an employee.

How does ISO 27001 awareness training compare to SOC 2 CC1.4?

Both frameworks require a documented, role-based, per-employee awareness program. The depth of evidence is similar, and the same training program usually satisfies both with shared evidence packs. The differences are in audit mechanics: SOC 2 is a US AICPA attestation with annual Type 2 cycles, while ISO 27001 is an international ISO standard with three-year certification cycles and accredited certification bodies.

For organizations pursuing both, the practical pattern is to design the awareness program against ISO 27001 A.6.3 (the more prescriptive control) and map the evidence pack to SOC 2 CC1.4 as a secondary view. The same training records, role-based assignments, and policy acknowledgments support both audits.

Sources & further reading

Primary sources cited above and adjacent guidance.

Make This Framework Audit-Ready

Book a 30-minute walkthrough. We will scope the exercise sequence, the assignment logic, and the evidence export your auditor expects.