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

SSP MP-1 statement naming the media protection policy owner and its review cadence (policy yearly for High, at least every three years for Moderate; procedures yearly for both); Media protection policy with dated approval and linked handling procedures; Encryption configuration for portable storage devices; Media protection policy covering electronic and physical media; Media inventory and labelling scheme by data classification; Sanitisation and destruction certificates from approved disposal vendor.

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

Backup tapes shipped without tamper evident packaging

FedRAMP Moderate (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · MP - Media Protection

`MP-1` Policy and Procedures

Develop, document, disseminate and review the policy for media protection, 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), MP-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

Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)

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

Encryption configuration for portable storage devices · Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)
Removable media usage policy and DLP enforcement evidence · Cloud console / configuration management

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Sanitisation and destruction certificates from approved disposal vendor · Vendor register / contract repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP MP-1 statement naming the media protection 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
Media protection policy with dated approval and linked handling procedures · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Media protection policy covering electronic and physical media · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Media inventory and labelling scheme by data classification · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

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

Common gaps auditors find

Backup tapes shipped without tamper evident packaging
Media classification labels missing on physical assets
Decommissioned drives stored unencrypted while awaiting destruction
USB usage permitted without DLP inspection or encryption

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

MA-6 Timely Maintenance (MA-6) · MP-2 Media Access