What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on STA-06 SSRM Documentation Review?

Review log of provider shared responsibility documents for each cloud service in use; Validation notes comparing provider documents against the organisation's own control set; Gap list where the provider's responsibility leaves controls uncovered; Sign-off by the cloud or security owner.

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

Provider documents filed but never compared with internal controls

CSA CCM v4.1 · STA - Supply Chain Management, Transparency, and Accountability

`STA-06` SSRM Documentation Review

The organisation reviews the documentation of the shared security responsibility model and confirms it is accurate.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, STA-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

SIEM / log platform

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

Review log of provider shared responsibility documents for each cloud service in use · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Sign-off by the cloud or security owner · Cloud console / configuration management

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Validation notes comparing provider documents against the organisation's own control set · Document repository
Gap list where the provider's responsibility leaves controls uncovered · Document repository

First move

Start with the 1 of 4 artefacts that already live in a system (SIEM / log platform); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Provider documents filed but never compared with internal controls
Review limited to major providers, missing smaller SaaS tools
Gaps found but not assigned to anyone

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

STA-05 SSRM Control Ownership · STA-07 SSRM Control Implementation