What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SI-3 Malicious Code Protection?

SSP SI-3 statement describing malicious code protection on endpoints and at entry and exit points, updates and scan frequency; Anti-malware console report showing coverage, signature currency and detections handled; Patch management policy with severity based SLAs; Patch deployment reports across server, endpoint, and network estates; Endpoint detection and response coverage report; Vulnerability remediation tickets with verification screenshots.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SI-3?

Alert backlog exceeds analyst capacity leading to triage delays

FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · SI - System and Information Integrity

`SI-3` Malicious Code Protection

Implement signature-based and non-signature-based malicious code protection; configure to scan endpoints and entry/exit points.

Source: FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), SI-3. 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

easy

to go live

Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

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

Anti-malware console report showing coverage, signature currency and detections handled · Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)
Patch deployment reports across server, endpoint, and network estates · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Vulnerability remediation tickets with verification screenshots · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Endpoint detection and response coverage report · Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP SI-3 statement describing malicious code protection on endpoints and at entry and exit points, updates and scan frequency · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Patch management policy with severity based SLAs · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Automate the pull from your Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling. Scan schedule, findings and remediation age straight from the scanner; patch compliance from the patch console.

Common gaps auditors find

Alert backlog exceeds analyst capacity leading to triage delays
Critical patches deployed beyond the policy SLA without exception
EDR coverage gaps on legacy operating systems

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

SI-2(3) Flaw Remediation | Time to Remediate Flaws and Benchmarks for Corrective Actions (SI-2(3)) · SI-4 System Monitoring