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 requi
4
artefacts
0
held by a system
1
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
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
This control is evidenced by people and documents, not systems. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date. Do not try to automate it.
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 sheetDEV-01 Policies for the development/procurement of information systems · DEV-03 Policies for changes to information systems