What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on DSP-07 Data Protection by Design and Default?

Secure design standard or security architecture principles; Design review or threat model records for sample projects; Security requirements in project templates; Sub-processor obligations on secure design; Lessons from incidents fed back into design standards.

What is the most common gap auditors find on DSP-07?

Security reviewed only before release

CSA CCM v4.1 · DSP - Data Security and Privacy Lifecycle Management

`DSP-07` Data Protection by Design and Default

Systems, products and business practices are developed around the principle of building security in from the start, following recognised industry practice.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, DSP-07. 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

Document repository

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 or threat model records for sample projects · Document repository
Lessons from incidents fed back into design standards · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Secure design standard or security architecture principles · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Security requirements in project templates · Document repository
Sub-processor obligations on secure design · Document repository

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 reviewed only before release
Business processes outside engineering ignored
No evidence design principles are applied to small changes

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

DSP-06 Data Ownership and Stewardship · DSP-08 Data Privacy by Design and Default