What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on MA-1 Policy and Procedures?

SSP MA-1 statement naming the maintenance policy owner and its review cadence (policy yearly for High, at least every three years for Moderate; procedures yearly for both); System maintenance policy with approval signature and review history; Maintenance personnel access list with background check status; Remote maintenance session logs with MFA and supervision evidence; Tool sanitisation records for media leaving the facility; Vendor maintenance agreements with security clauses.

What is the most common gap auditors find on MA-1?

Emergency maintenance performed without retrospective documentation

FedRAMP Moderate (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · MA - Maintenance

`MA-1` Policy and Procedures

Develop, document, disseminate and review the policy for maintenance, and its procedures, on the FedRAMP-defined cadence: policy at least annually under High and at least every three years under Moderate, procedures at least annually and after significant changes under both.

Source: FedRAMP Moderate (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), MA-1. 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

Identity provider / directory

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

Remote maintenance session logs with MFA and supervision evidence · Identity provider / directory
Tool sanitisation records for media leaving the facility · Physical access / facilities

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP MA-1 statement naming the maintenance policy owner and its review cadence (policy yearly for High, at least every three years for Moderate; procedures yearly for both) · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System maintenance policy with approval signature and review history · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Maintenance personnel access list with background check status · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Vendor maintenance agreements with security clauses · Vendor register / contract repository

First move

Start with the 2 of 6 artefacts that already live in a system (Identity provider / directory); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Emergency maintenance performed without retrospective documentation
Maintenance vendors lack signed confidentiality and security clauses
Vendor engineers granted standing access rather than session based access

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

IR-9(4) Information Spillage Response | Exposure to Unauthorized Personnel (IR-9(4)) · MA-2 Controlled Maintenance