What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on TVM-02 Malware and Malicious Instructions Protection Policy and Procedures?

Approved malware protection policy; Procedures for anti-malware deployment, updates and alert handling; Coverage of malicious instructions such as malicious scripts, macros or prompt injection in the policy scope; Annual and change-driven review records.

What is the most common gap auditors find on TVM-02?

Policy covers endpoints only, not servers or workloads

CSA CCM v4.1 · TVM - Threat & Vulnerability Management

`TVM-02` Malware and Malicious Instructions Protection Policy and Procedures

The organisation maintains approved and enforced policies and procedures for protection against malware and malicious instructions, communicates them, checks how well they work, and revisits them yearly at minimum or after significant change.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, TVM-02. 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

Annual and change-driven review records · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Approved malware protection policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures for anti-malware deployment, updates and alert handling · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Coverage of malicious instructions such as malicious scripts, macros or prompt injection in the policy scope · 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

Policy covers endpoints only, not servers or workloads
Malicious script or instruction based attacks not addressed
Review overdue

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

TVM-01 Threat and Vulnerability Management Policy and Procedures · TVM-03 Vulnerability Identification