What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on AIS-01 Application and Interface Security Policy and Procedures?

Approved application security policy with owner, version and review date; Supporting secure coding standards and procedures referenced by the policy; Records of communication or training on the policy for developers and operations staff; Policy review log showing yearly and change-triggered reviews; Exceptions granted under the policy with approver and expiry.

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

Policy covers internally built code only and ignores third-party and open source components

CSA CCM v4.1 · AIS - Application & Interface Security

`AIS-01` Application and Interface Security Policy and Procedures

Application security policies and procedures are approved, written down, communicated, applied, evaluated and kept current. They are reviewed and refreshed annually at a minimum and also after significant changes.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, AIS-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 CSA CCM v4.1 in the compliance library.

Version 4.1 adds 11 controls (among them API security, log sanitisation and a service bill of materials) and renumbers several domains. CSA accepts v4.0.x during its transition; if your STAR assessment is still on v4.0.1, check the numbering against it.

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

Policy review log showing yearly and change-triggered reviews · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Records of communication or training on the policy for developers and operations staff · HR system / LMS

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Approved application security policy with owner, version and review date · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Supporting secure coding standards and procedures referenced by the policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Exceptions granted under the policy with approver and expiry · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 1 system-held artefact from your SIEM / log platform on a schedule; put the documents under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Policy covers internally built code only and ignores third-party and open source components
No review after adopting a new development platform or pipeline
Developers unaware the policy exists

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

A&A-06 Remediation · AIS-02 Application Security Baseline Requirements