What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SEC01-BP05 Reduce security management scope?

Service selection record showing managed versus self-managed options considered; Shared responsibility mapping per service in the workload; Total cost of ownership analysis covering security maintenance effort; AWS Artifact compliance reports relied on for the managed components.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SEC01-BP05?

self-managing databases, queues or key stores with no rationale

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar · Security Foundations

`SEC01-BP05` Reduce security management scope

Reduce the surface the team must secure itself by preferring AWS managed services that shift provisioning, patching and backup of underlying components to the provider, and weigh that management overhead when selecting services.

Source: AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar, SEC01-BP05. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar in the compliance library.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Document repository

where the evidence lives

teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Service selection record showing managed versus self-managed options considered · Document repository
Total cost of ownership analysis covering security maintenance effort · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Shared responsibility mapping per service in the workload · Document repository
AWS Artifact compliance reports relied on for the managed components · Document repository

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

self-managing databases, queues or key stores with no rationale
no record of which controls the provider operates
shared responsibility boundary undocumented so patching ownership is ambiguous

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

SEC01-BP04 Stay up to date with security threats and recommendations · SEC01-BP06 Automate deployment of standard security controls