What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SEC06-BP02 Provision compute from hardened images?

Golden image build pipeline definition and hardening standard applied; Private registry inventory and access policy; Signature verification step in the build or admission path; Image patch and rebuild cadence records.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SEC06-BP02?

instances built from unmanaged public images

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar · Infrastructure Protection

`SEC06-BP02` Provision compute from hardened images

Build compute from hardened baseline images, and pull what workloads need at runtime (libraries, container images and similar dependencies) only from trusted registries whose signatures have been verified.

Source: AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar, SEC06-BP02. 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

moderate

to go live

Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

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

Image patch and rebuild cadence records · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Golden image build pipeline definition and hardening standard applied · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Private registry inventory and access policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Signature verification step in the build or admission path · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 1 of 4 artefacts that already live in a system (Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

instances built from unmanaged public images
container images pulled straight from public registries at deploy time
no signature verification so tampered artefacts run undetected
golden images never rebuilt so they drift out of patch

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

SEC06-BP01 Perform vulnerability management · SEC06-BP03 Reduce manual management and interactive access