What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on PSS-10 Software Defined Networking?

Design documentation for tenant separation within the software defined network; Validation test results for a new or modified networking feature; Defect records showing risk oriented remediation decisions; Configuration evidence of isolation between customer virtual networks.

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

Tenant isolation assumed from the underlying platform vendor and never tested

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

`PSS-10` Software Defined Networking

Where the service offers software defined networking, keep customer data confidential through suitable SDN procedures, validate the networking functions before releasing new ones or modifying existing ones, and assess and correct identified defects in a risk oriented way.

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

moderate

to go live

Cloud console / configuration management

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

Configuration evidence of isolation between customer virtual networks · Cloud console / configuration management

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Validation test results for a new or modified networking feature · Source control / CI pipeline
Defect records showing risk oriented remediation decisions · Cloud console / configuration management

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Design documentation for tenant separation within the software defined network · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

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

Common gaps auditors find

Tenant isolation assumed from the underlying platform vendor and never tested
Networking features shipped without validating the separation they affect
Traffic separation defects triaged as functional bugs rather than security issues
Overlay separation in place while management plane traffic remains shared

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-09 Authorisation Mechanisms · PSS-11 Images for Virtual Machines and Containers