What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on AIS-06 Secure Application Deployment?

Deployment standard or runbook describing the approved deployment path; CI/CD pipeline configuration showing automated, repeatable deployments; Segregation of duties matrix between developers, security and release staff; Deployment logs for sampled releases showing approvals and the pipeline used; Infrastructure as code templates used for application environments.

What is the most common gap auditors find on AIS-06?

Manual deployments to production outside the pipeline

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

`AIS-06` Secure Application Deployment

Strategies and capabilities are set up and used so that applications are deployed securely, in a standardised and compliant way, with automation wherever possible.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, AIS-06. 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

Source control / CI pipeline

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

CI/CD pipeline configuration showing automated, repeatable deployments · Source control / CI pipeline
Deployment logs for sampled releases showing approvals and the pipeline used · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Deployment standard or runbook describing the approved deployment path · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Segregation of duties matrix between developers, security and release staff · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Infrastructure as code templates used for application environments · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 2 of 5 artefacts that already live in a system (Source control / CI pipeline); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Manual deployments to production outside the pipeline
Developers can deploy their own code to production with no independent approval
Different deployment methods per team with no common security checks

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-05 Application Security Testing · AIS-07 Application Vulnerability Remediation