What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SR-12 Component Disposal (SR-12)?

SSP SR-12 statement describing disposal techniques for data, documentation, tools and components; Disposal records and destruction certificates for components; Continuous monitoring scorecards for critical suppliers; Contractual flow down of security requirements to subcontractors; Supplier incident notification clauses and exercise records; Supply chain risk management policy and program charter.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SR-12?

Supplier incidents discovered through news rather than contractual notification

FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · SR - Supply Chain Risk Management

`SR-12` Component Disposal (SR-12)

Dispose of data, documentation, tools, or system components using defined techniques and methods.

Source: FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), SR-12. 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

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

Disposal records and destruction certificates for components · Data governance / DLP tooling
Supplier incident notification clauses and exercise records · Vendor register / contract repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP SR-12 statement describing disposal techniques for data, documentation, tools and components · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Continuous monitoring scorecards for critical suppliers · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Contractual flow down of security requirements to subcontractors · Document repository
Supply chain risk management policy and program charter · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Tiered vendor inventory with criticality scoring · Vendor register / contract repository

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

Supplier incidents discovered through news rather than contractual notification
Flow down clauses present in master agreements but missing from statements of work
Sub tier suppliers not identified for critical components
Vendor risk tier ratings static despite changes in service scope

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

SR-11(2) Component Authenticity | Configuration Control for Component Service and Repair (SR-11(2))