● FrameworkHIPAA Security Rule45 CFR Part 164 (US)§164.308 / §164.312 / §164.314
Compliance / HIPAA Security Rule
§ HIPAA Security Rule
Research artifacts mapped to selected HIPAA provisions.
The HIPAA Security Rule includes periodic technical and non-technical evaluation requirements. This page provides an illustrative technical-artifact mapping, not a compliance determination or legal opinion.
Important boundary. This page is an illustrative reference mapping. Framework references describe evidence mapping and control alignment. SecHive is not presently certified or independently audited under these frameworks unless explicitly stated. This page is not legal advice, evidence that SecHive implements these controls, or a claim that any organization satisfies HIPAA Security Rule.
§ Articles → Evidence
How research artifacts may relate to HIPAA Security Rule.
The mapping is intentionally narrow and illustrative. The final relevance and sufficiency of evidence must be determined by the organization and its qualified assessor.
| Article / control | What it requires | SecHive artifact |
|---|---|---|
| §164.308(a)(1) — Risk analysis | Accurate and thorough assessment of potential risks and vulnerabilities. | Hypothesis graph and validated finding set per engagement. |
| §164.308(a)(8) — Evaluation | Periodic technical and non-technical evaluation. | Mode-labeled, retained, and replayable proof packs. |
| §164.312(a)(1) — Access control | Technical policies and procedures to allow access only to authorized persons. | Authorization-replay and IDOR findings, with replay scripts retained. |
| §164.312(b) — Audit controls | Hardware, software, and procedural mechanisms that record and examine activity. | Reproducible exploit chains feed detection and audit log design. |
| §164.314 — Business Associate contracts | Written assurances that BA will appropriately safeguard ePHI. | Source-audit run mode against BA-supplied components. |
§ Review view
How artifacts can be organized.
A practical format for technical review; acceptance by an auditor or assessor is not implied.
For the CISO
- Mappable evidence per Article 21(2) sub-clause.
- Time-bounded findings with severity and impact.
- Retest records that close the loop with the engineering team.
For the legal / compliance team
- Redaction manifests for cross-border or supplier engagements.
- Operator identity recorded on every disposition.
- Artifact hashes on report bundles.
For engineering
- Deterministic
replay.shper finding. - Source references when source mode is enabled.
- Negative evidence for refuted candidates.
For the auditor
- Run-mode-labeled evidence rows.
- sha256 binding to underlying artifacts.
- Methodology spine consistent across engagements.
§ Sample evidence
A page from the matrix.
SecHive renders an evidence matrix per engagement. Below is one row, redacted.
EVIDENCE ROW — sample
# evidence-row.yaml — redacted control: §164.308(a)(8) # effectiveness testing finding_id: VTX-RPL-0042 mode: black-box target: redacted target_ref: image@sha256:9c4e… # pinned artifact: path: artifacts/replay.sh sha256: 7c3a… review: human-approved disposition: reviewer: redacted-operator state: confirmed retest: status: fixed @ 2026-04-18 evidence: artifacts/retest-receipt.json
What a reviewer sees
- The control id and the finding id, bound together.
- A run-mode label (black-box, source-aware, etc.).
- A sha256 of the underlying artifact.
- A reviewer disposition with operator identity.
- A retest record if the finding has been remediated.
Discuss a HIPAA Security Rule reference mapping.
Bring an authorized scope and the evidence questions you are working through.