What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SEC06-BP04 Validate software integrity?

Signing key management procedure and key inventory; Signature verification enforcement in the build or admission controller; Record of artefacts rejected for failed verification; Certificate validation policy for vendor download sources.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SEC06-BP04?

downloads trusted on source reputation alone

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar · Infrastructure Protection

`SEC06-BP04` Validate software integrity

Cryptographically verify the integrity of software artefacts the workload consumes and sign software the organisation produces so unauthorised changes are detectable before execution.

Source: AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar, SEC06-BP04. 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

Record of artefacts rejected for failed verification · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Signing key management procedure and key inventory · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Signature verification enforcement in the build or admission controller · Document repository
Certificate validation policy for vendor download sources · Vendor register / contract 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

downloads trusted on source reputation alone
signing keys held on build agents with broad access
verification implemented as a warning rather than a hard fail

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-BP03 Reduce manual management and interactive access · SEC06-BP05 Automate compute protection