What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on DEV-02 Outsourcing of the development?

Development agreement clauses covering secure engineering obligations; Acceptance criteria agreed with the supplier for functional and non-functional requirements; Supplier-supplied proof that vulnerability checks ran before delivery; Acceptance sign-off completed by the provider for delivered components.

What is the most common gap auditors find on DEV-02?

Supplier agreement fixes deliverables and dates but says nothing about engineering security

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

`DEV-02` Outsourcing of the development

Where development of the service or individual components is outsourced, contractually bind the supplier to recognised secure engineering practice, to acceptance testing against agreed functional and non-functional requirements, and to evidence that known vulnerabilities were ruled out.

Source: BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue), DEV-02. 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

Acceptance sign-off completed by the provider for delivered components · Source control / CI pipeline

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Development agreement clauses covering secure engineering obligations · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Acceptance criteria agreed with the supplier for functional and non-functional requirements · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Supplier-supplied proof that vulnerability checks ran before delivery · 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

Supplier agreement fixes deliverables and dates but says nothing about engineering security
Code accepted on functional testing alone, with no vulnerability evidence ever requested
Development subcontracted below the primary supplier and left outside the agreed clauses

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

DEV-01 Policies for the development/procurement of information systems · DEV-03 Policies for changes to information systems