What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on DEV-01 Policies for the development/procurement of information systems?

Secure development policy naming the standard or method it is built on; Lifecycle description running from requirements through to operational vulnerability handling; Deployment security instruction covering the continuous delivery route; Proof that the policy was issued to internal developers and contracted development staff.

What is the most common gap auditors find on DEV-01?

Policy stops at coding conventions and is silent on deployment and operation

BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) · C5: Procurement, Development and Modification of Information Systems

`DEV-01` Policies for the development/procurement of information systems

Issue secure development policies covering the whole service lifecycle and grounded in recognised standards, addressing security in requirements, design, implementation, testing and verification, in software deployment including continuous delivery, and in reacting to faults and vulnerabilities during operation.

Source: BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue), DEV-01. 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 BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) in the compliance library.

The edition of the catalogue is not stamped here; check the edition your attestation is issued against.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Policy repository / GRC workspace

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

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Secure development policy naming the standard or method it is built on · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Lifecycle description running from requirements through to operational vulnerability handling · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Deployment security instruction covering the continuous delivery route · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Proof that the policy was issued to internal developers and contracted development staff · Policy repository / GRC workspace

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

Policy stops at coding conventions and is silent on deployment and operation
Delivery pipelines run under no documented security requirement at all
No recognised standard underpins the policy, so its completeness cannot be judged

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

CRY-04 Secure key management · DEV-02 Outsourcing of the development