What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on PSS-01 Guidelines and Recommendations for Cloud Customers?

Published secure configuration guidance matching the current production release; Defined list of the topics the guidance must cover and their content owners; Version comparison showing guidance updated alongside a service release; Guidance section describing rights combinations that create elevated risk.

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

Guidance describes a superseded release and references settings that no longer exist

BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) · C5: Product Safety and Security

`PSS-01` Guidelines and Recommendations for Cloud Customers

Publish and keep current secure use guidance for customers on the productive service version, pitched at their security, compliance and audit specialists, covering secure configuration, vulnerability and update information sources, error handling and logging, authentication, elevated risk rights combinations, and privileged administration functions.

Source: BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue), PSS-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

moderate

to go live

Source control / CI pipeline

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

Published secure configuration guidance matching the current production release · Source control / CI pipeline

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Defined list of the topics the guidance must cover and their content owners · Document repository
Version comparison showing guidance updated alongside a service release · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Guidance section describing rights combinations that create elevated risk · Document repository

First move

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

Common gaps auditors find

Guidance describes a superseded release and references settings that no longer exist
Privileged administration functions left out of the guidance entirely
Material written for end users rather than for security and audit specialists
No pointer given to sources of vulnerability and update information

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

PS-07 Surveillance of operational and environmental parameters · PSS-02 Identification of Vulnerabilities of the Cloud Service