Back to KeepGrade
U.S. higher education · source reviewed 2026-10-10

Security coverage shaped around your institution’s boundary

Review primary-source coverage, record which requirements fit the systems and data in scope, and track evidence needs and gaps in KeepGrade’s assessment workspace.

Source-linked coverage

Know what each source is—and when it matters

Each entry names its legal or program role, source version or effective date, last review date, applicability boundary, and authoritative references. The catalog is representative; it is not a complete legal inventory for every institution.

Important boundary: KeepGrade’s catalog is not legal advice, a legal opinion, or a legal applicability determination. Institutional counsel and compliance owners decide what applies to a particular institution, system, data set, relationship, or agreement.

A voluntary framework, certification, attestation, or questionnaire is not itself a generally binding rule. Certification and contract-triggered programs matter only when their actual program terms, solicitation, contract, or customer request brings them into scope; the designated program owner or assessor controls the formal outcome.

FERPA

Binding federal law and implementing regulation

Version / date: 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99, current e-CFR checked 2026-10-10

Reviewed: 2026-10-10

Scope

Education-record privacy for covered educational agencies and institutions. Confirm the Department of Education funding basis, whether records in this system are education records, and the disclosure context.

How it relates to other obligations

A vendor may act as a school official only when the regulatory criteria and the institution’s direct-control requirements are met. Do not infer scope from the institution name alone.

Evidence to consider

  • Education-record inventory and system/data-flow boundary
  • Access, disclosure, and redisclosure procedures
  • School-official criteria and applicable vendor agreements

GLBA Safeguards Rule

Binding FTC regulation; separate Title IV agreement duties may also apply

Version / date: 16 CFR Part 314, current e-CFR checked 2026-10-10; 2026–2027 Federal Student Aid Handbook

Reviewed: 2026-10-10

Scope

Determine whether the institution’s covered financial activity and customer information are in scope. Federal Student Aid guidance addresses Title IV institutions and student financial-aid information.

How it relates to other obligations

The FTC rule is regulatory. Title IV Program Participation Agreement and service-provider terms are separate contractual or program obligations; they are not the same source of duty.

Evidence to consider

  • Financial-aid/customer information inventory and data-flow boundary
  • Written information-security program and risk assessment
  • Service-provider inventory, contracts, oversight, and incident procedures

HIPAA Security Rule

Binding regulation when the HIPAA role and information scope apply

Version / date: 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, current e-CFR checked 2026-10-10

Reviewed: 2026-10-10

Scope

Applies to covered entities and business associates handling electronic protected health information. Confirm role, transactions, ePHI flows, and system boundary.

How it relates to other obligations

Student health-clinic records governed by FERPA are generally outside HIPAA. A university may separately operate a covered health provider or act as a business associate for another covered entity. HHS says the 2024 Security Rule proposal remains proposed and the current Security Rule remains in effect.

Evidence to consider

  • Covered-entity/business-associate role analysis and ePHI inventory
  • Risk analysis, safeguard implementation, and incident records
  • Business-associate agreements and subcontractor relationships where applicable

HITECH Act

Binding federal Act/law that amended HIPAA; not a cybersecurity framework

Version / date: Pub. L. 111-5, Title XIII (enacted 2009-02-17)

Reviewed: 2026-10-10

Scope

Relevant through applicable HIPAA provisions, including business-associate responsibilities and breach notification. It follows the institution’s HIPAA role, ePHI, and relationships.

How it relates to other obligations

Read alongside the current HIPAA regulations. HITECH is a law, not a standalone security control framework or certification.

Evidence to consider

  • HIPAA role and ePHI boundary analysis
  • Business-associate agreements and downstream relationships
  • Breach assessment, notification, and response records where applicable

NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0

Voluntary security and risk-management framework

Version / date: NIST CSWP 29, published 2024-02-26

Reviewed: 2026-10-10

Scope

A broad risk-management framework for organizations of any size or sector. Its six functions are Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover.

How it relates to other obligations

Adoption is an institutional choice unless a separate contract, policy, or other obligation incorporates outcomes or controls from it.

Evidence to consider

  • Selected CSF profile, outcomes, and boundary
  • Risk register and governance decisions mapped to chosen outcomes
  • Evidence references and documented gaps for selected outcomes

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 3

Voluntary NIST publication; contractual when incorporated by an agreement

Version / date: Final Rev. 3, published 2024-05-14

Reviewed: 2026-10-10

Scope

Requirements cover nonfederal system components that process, store, or transmit CUI, or provide protection for those components. An applicable agreement selects whether and which revision applies.

How it relates to other obligations

Use Rev. 3 only when the contract or other agreement incorporates it. Some contracts may still identify Rev. 2 or transition terms. As of 2026-10-10, DoD identifies Rev. 2 as the CMMC Level 2 baseline during a paused Phase II rollout. CUI by itself does not make this publication universally binding.

Evidence to consider

  • Award clauses, CUI markings, and the exact incorporated revision
  • CUI data-flow inventory and system boundary
  • Contract-required system security plan, assessment results, and remediation records

DoD Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC)

Certification and assessment program; contract-triggered

Version / date: 32 CFR Part 170 effective 2024-12-16; DFARS Subpart 204.75 current acquisition text checked 2026-10-10

Reviewed: 2026-10-10

Scope

Applies to covered contractor information systems at the level required by the relevant DoD solicitation or contract. As of 2026-10-10, DoD says Phase II implementation is suspended; confirm the current clause, rollout terms, scope, and assessment route for each award.

How it relates to other obligations

Some contract levels require an independent C3PAO or government assessment. KeepGrade supports readiness and evidence organization; it does not issue CMMC certification or replace a required assessor.

Evidence to consider

  • DoD solicitation/contract clauses and required CMMC level
  • FCI/CUI asset inventory and CMMC assessment boundary
  • Current SPRS status and required C3PAO or government assessment records

HECVAT

Vendor assessment questionnaire

Version / date: HECVAT 4.1.6, EDUCAUSE version checked 2026-10-10

Reviewed: 2026-10-10

Scope

A standardized questionnaire used by higher-education institutions for vendor risk assessment. It is not an institutional security framework, law, or certification.

How it relates to other obligations

Use the current questionnaire when a university or customer requests it for a vendor relationship. EDUCAUSE permits specified institutional and vendor use, but third-party risk platforms need an explicit license to integrate it. This catalog tracks metadata only and does not host or reproduce questionnaire content.

Evidence to consider

  • University/customer request and vendor relationship
  • Current questionnaire obtained from EDUCAUSE and response owner
  • Reviewed evidence references, exceptions, and follow-up items

University assessment workflow

Keep the decision with the institution

  1. 1. Declare the boundary.

    Name the organization, systems, environments, business areas, and exclusions.

  2. 2. Record context.

    Capture education records, financial-aid data, HIPAA role and ePHI, CUI, contract terms, and vendor requests.

  3. 3. Review each entry.

    Treat the signal as a prompt. A responsible reviewer records applicable, not-applicable, or deferred with rationale.

  4. 4. Map evidence and gaps.

    Track evidence status and notes, then open the engagement evidence repository for supporting records.