What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on CM-14 Signed Components?

Code-signing policy naming the approved certificate authorities; Configuration showing signature enforcement at install time; Exception register for unsigned components with compensating controls.

What is the most common gap auditors find on CM-14?

Signature checking enforced on servers but not on build agents or container images

FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · CM - Configuration Management

`CM-14` Signed Components

Prevent the installation of FedRAMP-defined software and firmware components without verification that the component has been digitally signed using a certificate that is recognized and approved by the organization.

Source: FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), CM-14. 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 FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) in the compliance library.

A FedRAMP baseline is a subset of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, enhancements included.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

moderate

to go live

Cloud console / configuration management

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

Configuration showing signature enforcement at install time · Cloud console / configuration management

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Code-signing policy naming the approved certificate authorities · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Exception register for unsigned components with compensating controls · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 1 of 3 artefacts that already live in a system (Cloud console / configuration management); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Signature checking enforced on servers but not on build agents or container images
Approved certificate list not maintained, so revoked signers still pass

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

CM-12(1) Information Location | Automated Tools to Support Information Location (CM-12(1)) · CP-1 Policy and Procedures