What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on DEV-10 Separation of environments?

Environment inventory marking the boundary between production and non-production; Access and network controls stopping non-production systems from reaching production; Method for producing test data by anonymisation or synthesis; Scan or review results showing non-production stores hold no live customer content.

What is the most common gap auditors find on DEV-10?

Production copies loaded into test systems to reproduce a defect and then left in place

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

`DEV-10` Separation of environments

Keep production environments physically or logically apart from development and test environments to prevent unauthorised access to customer data, malware spread and unintended component changes, and do not use production data inside those non-production environments.

Source: BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue), DEV-10. 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

Scan or review results showing non-production stores hold no live customer content · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Environment inventory marking the boundary between production and non-production · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Access and network controls stopping non-production systems from reaching production · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Method for producing test data by anonymisation or synthesis · 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

Production copies loaded into test systems to reproduce a defect and then left in place
Accounts and credentials that span both production and development estates
Separation claimed logically while both estates share one platform with no enforcing control

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-09 Approvals for provision in the production environment · HR-01 Verification of qualification and trustworthiness