What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on DEV-03 Policies for changes to information systems?

Change management rules stating risk categories with the matching test and approval levels; Definition of how developing, testing and releasing duties are held apart; Requirement text for informing customers about changes that affect them; Emergency change instruction including its retrospective documentation obligation.

What is the most common gap auditors find on DEV-03?

The emergency route is used routinely, sidestepping the approvals the rules set out

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

`DEV-03` Policies for changes to information systems

Publish change management rules for software deployment setting criteria for risk categorisation, the testing and approvals each category demands, separation between developing, testing and releasing, customer notification duties, documentation updates, and emergency changes held to the same security level.

Source: BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue), DEV-03. 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

moderate

to go live

Ticketing / ITSM

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

Change management rules stating risk categories with the matching test and approval levels · Ticketing / ITSM

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Definition of how developing, testing and releasing duties are held apart · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Requirement text for informing customers about changes that affect them · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Emergency change instruction including its retrospective documentation obligation · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

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

Common gaps auditors find

The emergency route is used routinely, sidestepping the approvals the rules set out
A single engineer is permitted to build, test and release the same change
Rules omit any obligation to refresh system, operational and user documentation

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-02 Outsourcing of the development · DEV-04 Safety training and awareness programme regarding continuous software delivery and associated systems…