What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SC-39 Process Isolation?

SSP SC-39 statement describing process isolation via the operating system, containers or hypervisor; Container runtime and host configuration showing separate process namespaces; TLS configuration scan results across in scope endpoints; Network segmentation diagrams with VLAN and zone mapping; Denial of service protection configuration and capacity test results; Boundary protection architecture with firewall and proxy rule documentation.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SC-39?

Flat networks expose sensitive workloads without segmentation

FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · SC - System and Communications Protection

`SC-39` Process Isolation

Maintain separate execution domain for each executing system process.

Source: FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), SC-39. 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

Container runtime and host configuration showing separate process namespaces · Cloud console / configuration management
TLS configuration scan results across in scope endpoints · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Denial of service protection configuration and capacity test results · Source control / CI pipeline

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP SC-39 statement describing process isolation via the operating system, containers or hypervisor · Document repository
Network segmentation diagrams with VLAN and zone mapping · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Boundary protection architecture with firewall and proxy rule documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Cryptographic standards specifying approved algorithms and key lengths · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 3 of 7 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

Flat networks expose sensitive workloads without segmentation
Cryptographic keys stored alongside the data they protect
Firewall rule base contains stale allow any entries
Internal traffic between services unencrypted within trusted zones

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

SC-28(1) Cryptographic Protection · SC-45 System Time Synchronization (SC-45)