What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SA-22 Unsupported System Components (SA-22)?

SSP SA-22 statement describing how unsupported components are identified and replaced or given alternative support; End of life component report with replacement plans or extended support contracts; Software bill of materials for in scope products; Acquisition policy with security clauses for contracts; Secure software development lifecycle procedures; Threat modelling and design review evidence for major releases.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SA-22?

Open source components used without SBOM or licence review

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

`SA-22` Unsupported System Components (SA-22)

Unsupported System Components. a. Replace system components when support for the components is no longer available from the developer, vendor, or manufacturer; or b. Provide the following options for alternative sources for continued support

Source: FedRAMP Moderate (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), SA-22. 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

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

End of life component report with replacement plans or extended support contracts · Vendor register / contract repository
Threat modelling and design review evidence for major releases · Document repository
Static and dynamic code analysis reports with finding remediation · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP SA-22 statement describing how unsupported components are identified and replaced or given alternative support · Document repository
Software bill of materials for in scope products · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Acquisition policy with security clauses for contracts · Vendor register / contract repository
Secure software development lifecycle procedures · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

Open source components used without SBOM or licence review
Vendor SOC reports collected but exceptions not analysed
Code scan findings closed without verification of fix
Security requirements absent from procurement templates for low value buys

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-15(3) Development Process, Standards, and Tools | Criticality Analysis (SA-15(3)) · SC-1 Policy and Procedures