What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on CP-10 System Recovery and Reconstitution?

SSP CP-10 statement describing recovery to a known secure state within the RTO, including rebuild from images and data restore order; Recovery exercise record showing time to restore against the RTO and a post-recovery integrity check; Backup schedule, retention, and offsite or immutable copy evidence; Annual tabletop and full failover test reports; Alternate processing site contract and capacity attestation; Restoration test logs with success criteria signed off.

What is the most common gap auditors find on CP-10?

RTO and RPO targets undefined for tier two systems

FedRAMP Moderate (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · CP - Contingency Planning

`CP-10` System Recovery and Reconstitution

Provide for recovery and reconstitution of system to known state within RTO.

Source: FedRAMP Moderate (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), CP-10. 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 Moderate (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

Backup / DR 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

Backup schedule, retention, and offsite or immutable copy evidence · Backup / DR tooling
Restoration test logs with success criteria signed off · Backup / DR tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Recovery exercise record showing time to restore against the RTO and a post-recovery integrity check · Backup / DR tooling
Annual tabletop and full failover test reports · Backup / DR tooling
Alternate processing site contract and capacity attestation · Vendor register / contract repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP CP-10 statement describing recovery to a known secure state within the RTO, including rebuild from images and data restore order · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Business impact analysis identifying critical systems · Document repository

First move

Start with the 2 of 7 artefacts that already live in a system (Backup / DR tooling); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

RTO and RPO targets undefined for tier two systems
Tabletop exercises lack participation from business owners
Alternate site capacity not validated against current load
Plan not updated after major architecture changes

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

CP-9(8) System Backup | Cryptographic Protection (CP-9(8)) · CP-10(2) System Recovery and Reconstitution | Transaction Recovery (CP-10(2))