SA-4 Acquisition Process
Include security/privacy requirements in contracts; FedRAMP-defined assurance requirements.
6
artefacts
0
held by a system
1
at each review
hard
to go live
Document repository
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
- Threat modelling and design review evidence for major releases · Document repository
governing documentDocuments that govern the control
- Control implementation statement for SA-4 citing the system mission and inheritance from common controls · 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
- Static and dynamic code analysis reports with finding remediation · Document repository
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
- Threat modelling performed inconsistently across product teams
- 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
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 sheetSA-3 System Development Life Cycle · SA-4(1) Acquisition Process | Functional Properties of Controls. Require the developer of the system, system component, or system service to provide a description of the functional properties of the controls to be implemented