What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on AIS-04 Secure Application Development Lifecycle?

Documented secure SDLC describing security activities at each stage from requirements to operation; Security requirements and threat model for a sampled application; Design review and code review records for sampled releases; Security test results from the pipeline for sampled releases; Developer secure coding training records.

What is the most common gap auditors find on AIS-04?

Security activities defined for build and test only, not for requirements analysis or planning

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

`AIS-04` Secure Application Development Lifecycle

A secure software development lifecycle is defined and followed, spanning every stage of an application's life: analysing requirements, planning, designing, building, testing, deploying and running it, all in line with security requirements.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, AIS-04. 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

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Design review and code review records for sampled releases · Source control / CI pipeline
Security test results from the pipeline for sampled releases · Source control / CI pipeline
Developer secure coding training records · HR system / LMS

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Documented secure SDLC describing security activities at each stage from requirements to operation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Security requirements and threat model for a sampled application · 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

Security activities defined for build and test only, not for requirements analysis or planning
SDLC documented but sampled projects skip mandated security gates
No threat modelling for new applications

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

AIS-03 Application Security Metrics · AIS-05 Application Security Testing