What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 16.14 Conduct Threat Modeling?

Threat models for in-scope applications with identified threats and mitigations; Training records for threat modellers; Design changes resulting from threat modelling.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 16.14?

Threat modelling done after build

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

`16.14` Conduct Threat Modeling

Carry out threat modelling, which identifies and addresses security design flaws before code is written. Trained people evaluate the design and the risk at each entry point and access level, laying out the application and the architecture and infrastructure beneath it systematically so its weak points become visible. Implementation Group: IG3 only (for enterprises facing sophisticated attackers or holding highly sensitive data). Asset type: Software. Security function: Protect.

Source: CIS Controls v8.1, 16.14. 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: Protect; 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.

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

Training records for threat modellers · HR system / LMS

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Threat models for in-scope applications with identified threats and mitigations · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Design changes resulting from threat modelling · 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

Threat modelling done after build
Models not updated as designs change
Performed by untrained staff

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

16.13 Conduct Application Penetration Testing · 17.1 Designate Personnel to Manage Incident Handling