What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SA-10 Developer Configuration Management?

SSP SA-10 statement requiring the developer to apply configuration management and track changes during development and operation; Version control history and change records showing only approved changes merged; Threat modelling and design review evidence for major releases; Static and dynamic code analysis reports with finding remediation; Vendor security questionnaires and SOC reports retained; Software bill of materials for in scope products.

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

Threat modelling performed inconsistently across product teams

FedRAMP Moderate (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · SA - System and Services Acquisition

`SA-10` Developer Configuration Management

Require developer to perform CM during development, implementation, operation; document/track changes; implement only approved changes.

Source: FedRAMP Moderate (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), SA-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

hard

to go live

Document repository

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

Version control history and change records showing only approved changes merged · Document repository

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Threat modelling and design review evidence for major releases · Document repository
Static and dynamic code analysis reports with finding remediation · Document repository
Vendor security questionnaires and SOC reports retained · Vendor register / contract repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP SA-10 statement requiring the developer to apply configuration management and track changes during development and operation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Software bill of materials for in scope products · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 1 system-held artefact from your Document repository on a schedule; put the documents under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Threat modelling performed inconsistently across product teams
Open source components used without SBOM or licence review
Vendor SOC reports collected but exceptions not analysed

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

SA-9(5) External System Services | Processing, Storage, and Service Location (SA-9(5)) · SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation