EvidenceSheet
FedRAMP Moderate · SA - System and Services Acquisition

SA-11(2) Developer Testing and Evaluation | Threat Modeling and Vulnerability Analyses. Require the developer of the system, system component, or system service to perform threat modeling and vulnerability analyses during development and the subsequent testing

Developer Testing and Evaluation | Threat Modeling and Vulnerability Analyses. Require the developer of the system, system component, or system service to perform threat modeling and vulnerability analyses during develop.

1
artefacts
0
held by a system
0
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

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Threat models · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

This control is evidenced by people and documents, not systems. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date. Do not try to automate it.

Common gaps auditors find

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-11(1) Developer Testing and Evaluation | Static Code Analysis. Require the developer of the system, system component, or system service to employ static code analysis tools to identify common flaws and document the results of · SA-15 Development Process, Standards, and Tools. a. Require the developer of the system, system component, or system service to follow a documented development process that: 1. Explicitly addresses security and privacy requirements; 2. Identifies the