What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on PSS-02 Identification of Vulnerabilities of the Cloud Service?

Pipeline configuration showing static and dynamic security testing stages; Findings report from a recent scan with severity ratings applied; Code review records signed off by the reviewing specialist; Software composition output listing advisories for third party libraries in use.

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

Security testing stages configured to warn only and never block a build

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

`PSS-02` Identification of Vulnerabilities of the Cloud Service

Build vulnerability detection into the software development process for the service, using a risk based mix of static and dynamic application security testing, expert code review and monitoring of confirmed flaws in third party libraries, then rate severity and remediate or mitigate immediately.

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

easy

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

Pipeline configuration showing static and dynamic security testing stages · Source control / CI pipeline
Software composition output listing advisories for third party libraries in use · Source control / CI pipeline

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Findings report from a recent scan with severity ratings applied · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Code review records signed off by the reviewing specialist · Source control / CI pipeline

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

none for this control

First move

Automate the pull from your Source control / CI pipeline. Pull-request approvals, pipeline test results and deployment records from source control, per release.

Common gaps auditors find

Security testing stages configured to warn only and never block a build
Library advisories monitored for direct dependencies while transitive ones are ignored
Severity taken from the tool default with no provider defined criteria applied
High severity findings carried forward release after release without treatment

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

PSS-01 Guidelines and Recommendations for Cloud Customers · PSS-03 Online Register of Known Vulnerabilities