EvidenceSheet
CIS Controls v8.1 · CIS Control 16: Application Software Security

16.13 Conduct Application Penetration Testing

Penetration test applications. For critical applications, authenticated testing finds business logic flaws better than code scanning or automated testing; it depends on the tester's skill in manipulating the application manually as both an authenticated and an unauthenticated user. Implementation Group: IG3 only (for enterprises facing sophisticated attackers or holding highly sensitive data). Asset type: Software. Security function: Govern.

Source: CIS Controls v8.1, 16.13. 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 CIS Controls v8.1 in the compliance library.

Scope: Implementation Groups: IG3. Security function: Govern; asset type: Software.

Each safeguard shows its Implementation Groups. IG1 is the essential baseline for every enterprise, IG2 adds to it, IG3 is all 153. Version 8.1 adds the Govern security function and asks for more processes to be documented; numbering is unchanged from v8.

3
artefacts
0
held by a system
2
at each review
hard
to go live
Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
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

  • Application penetration test reports including authenticated testing for critical applications · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
  • Remediation tracking of findings · Source control / CI pipeline

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Tester qualifications · 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

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

16.12 Implement Code-Level Security Checks · 16.14 Conduct Threat Modeling