SI-3 Malicious Code Protection
Implement signature-based and non-signature-based malicious code protection; configure to scan endpoints and entry/exit points.
5
artefacts
0
held by a system
1
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
- Vulnerability remediation tickets with verification screenshots · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
governing documentDocuments that govern the control
- Control implementation statement for SI-3 citing the system mission and inheritance from common controls · Document repository
- Patch management policy with severity based SLAs · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Patch deployment reports across server, endpoint, and network estates · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Endpoint detection and response coverage report · 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
- Alert backlog exceeds analyst capacity leading to triage delays
- Critical patches deployed beyond the policy SLA without exception
- EDR coverage gaps on legacy operating systems
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 sheetSI-2(3) Flaw Remediation | Time to Remediate Flaws and Benchmarks for Corrective Actions. (a) Measure the time between flaw identification and flaw remediation; and (b) Establish the following benchmarks for taking corrective actions: [Assignment: organization-defined · SI-4 System Monitoring