Skip to main content
PCI Monitor

PCI DSS 11.6.1 evidence: what to prepare for your assessor

Standards (PCI DSS) · 6 min read · Last reviewed: October 23, 2026

For PCI DSS 11.6.1 you need to show an assessor that a mechanism for detecting changes and tampering exists, that it covers your payment pages and their HTTP headers as the consumer's browser receives them, that it runs at least every seven days (or at the frequency in your targeted risk analysis), and that people are alerted and act. In practice that means six things: a description of the mechanism, the list of pages it covers, proof of what it evaluates, a dated history of runs, a record of alerts and the decisions taken, and the risk analysis if you do not run weekly.

The six things to have ready

Each part of requirement 11.6.1 suggests a piece of evidence. The assessor decides what is sufficient for your environment, so treat this as a way to organize your evidence, and confirm the details with your assessor.

  1. A description of the mechanism. What it is, where it runs (inside the page, outside your network, at a proxy), and who is responsible for it.
  2. The list of payment pages it covers. Every page in scope, including checkout steps behind a login and pages that embed a provider's payment form, and who keeps the list current.
  3. Proof of what it evaluates. The requirement is about the HTTP headers and the contents of payment pages as received by the consumer browser, so show that the mechanism looks at what a browser receives and not only at your source code or your server.
  4. A dated history of runs. Results from every run, with dates, covering the whole period the assessment looks at.
  5. A record of alerts and what happened next. Who is notified, how alerts are triaged, and the decision made for each change (authorized or not, and why).
  6. The targeted risk analysis, if you do not run weekly. The requirement allows a frequency other than every seven days only if it comes from a targeted risk analysis performed according to requirement 12.3.1.

Evidence for each part of the requirement

The requirement saysWhat you can show
Alert personnel to unauthorized modification, including indicators of compromise, changes, additions and deletionsThe alert configuration, the named recipients, example alerts, and the written steps for what happens after one.
Applies to the HTTP headers and the contents of payment pagesThe page list, and a run result that shows both the headers and the page content (scripts included) that were compared.
As received by the consumer browserA description of how the check loads the page (a real browser, from outside your network) and a run showing what it received.
At least once every seven days, or at the frequency in the targeted risk analysisThe schedule setting and the run history; or the documented risk analysis (requirement 12.3.1) and its review.
Unauthorized, so someone must decide what is authorizedYour approved script list and the decisions on each change. See requirement 6.4.3 and the script inventory.

Questions to ask yourself before the assessment

These are the places where evidence most often runs thin, as a practical checklist rather than a statement about any assessor:

  • Do you keep the results, or only run the check? A mechanism with no saved history of runs is hard to demonstrate afterwards.
  • Is the payment step really covered? If the payment form sits behind a login or appears mid-flow, a check of the public pages alone may not evaluate the page that matters.
  • Is every alert assigned to a person? The requirement is about alerting personnel, so someone must be named, reachable and able to say what they did.
  • Is the page list current? New checkout steps and new payment pages should be added when they appear.
  • Did the frequency change? If you moved away from weekly, is the targeted risk analysis written down and reviewed?
  • Can you show an unauthorized change being handled? A recorded example, from a test if no real change has occurred, shows the process works.

Requirement 11.6.1 has been mandatory since 31 March 2025. Keep the evidence for the whole assessment period, in a form you can export and date.

Keeping the evidence audit-ready

Decide where the proof lives before the assessment starts. A single folder or system that holds the description, the page list, the run history, the alerts and the decisions saves a scramble later. Date everything, keep who made each decision, and review the page list and the alert recipients on a schedule (for example, every quarter and after any change to the checkout).

The related PCI DSS client-side security checklist puts 6.4.3 and 11.6.1 side by side, and how to detect client-side tampering explains what the checks look for.

Key takeaways

  • Organize 11.6.1 evidence into six items: the mechanism, the pages it covers, what it evaluates, run history, alerts with decisions, and the risk analysis if not weekly.
  • The requirement is about headers and payment pages as received by the consumer browser, so show that your check sees what a browser receives.
  • A history of dated results matters as much as the tool; keep it for the whole assessment period.
  • Name who receives alerts and record what they decided for each change.
  • Your assessor decides what is sufficient; confirm the details with them early.

Frequently asked questions

What evidence do I need for PCI DSS 11.6.1?

A description of the mechanism that detects changes and tampering, the payment pages it covers, proof that it evaluates the HTTP headers and page content as received by the consumer browser, dated results from runs at least every seven days (or at the frequency in your targeted risk analysis), and a record of alerts and the decisions taken.

Is a screenshot of my monitoring tool enough?

Usually not by itself. A single screenshot shows one moment; the requirement is about a mechanism that runs on a schedule and alerts people. Keep exportable, dated results and the alert records, and ask your assessor what format they accept.

What if I do not run the check weekly?

The requirement allows a different frequency only if it is set by a targeted risk analysis performed according to requirement 12.3.1. Keep that analysis and its review with the other evidence.

Does the evidence need to include pages behind a login?

If a payment page is part of your payment flow, it is in scope however it is reached. Show that your mechanism evaluates those pages too, not only the public ones.

References

Last reviewed: October 23, 2026