What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on AIS-05 Application Security Testing?

Application security testing strategy with acceptance criteria for new systems, upgrades and versions; SAST, DAST and dependency scan results from the CI/CD pipeline for sampled releases; Release gate configuration showing builds blocked on failed security tests; Acceptance sign-off records for a new system or major upgrade; Inventory of which tests are automated and which are manual, with reasons.

What is the most common gap auditors find on AIS-05?

Acceptance criteria exist for functional testing but not security

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

`AIS-05` Application Security Testing

A testing strategy is put in place that sets acceptance criteria for new systems, upgrades and new versions, gives assurance of application security and keeps the organisation compliant while still meeting its delivery goals. Testing is automated where that is practical and possible.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, AIS-05. 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

moderate

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

SAST, DAST and dependency scan results from the CI/CD pipeline for sampled releases · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Release gate configuration showing builds blocked on failed security tests · Source control / CI pipeline

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Acceptance sign-off records for a new system or major upgrade · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Application security testing strategy with acceptance criteria for new systems, upgrades and versions · Document repository
Inventory of which tests are automated and which are manual, with reasons · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 2 of 5 artefacts that already live in a system (Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Acceptance criteria exist for functional testing but not security
Automated scans run but failures do not block release
Upgrades and patch releases bypass the testing strategy

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-04 Secure Application Development Lifecycle · AIS-06 Secure Application Deployment