A.8.30 Outsourced development
Direct, monitor and review outsourced system development.
12
artefacts
2
held by a system
4
at each review
hard
to go live
Vendor register / contract repository
where the evidence lives
teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review
system holds itEvidence a system already holds
- Risk and issue log · SIEM / log platform
- Performance metrics dashboard · SIEM / log platform
periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review
- Third party audit report · Vendor register / contract repository
- Penetration test results · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
- Code review checklist · Source control / CI pipeline
- Functional test report · Document repository
governing documentDocuments that govern the control
- Master service agreement · Vendor register / contract repository
- Statement of work development · Vendor register / contract repository
- Security clauses addendum · Vendor register / contract repository
- Vendor security questionnaire · Vendor register / contract repository
- Project status reports · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Security test summary · Document repository
First move
Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 2 system-held artefacts from your SIEM / log platform 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
- contracts lack specific security obligations
- no ongoing monitoring of vendor performance
- insufficient evidence of code security testing
- reliance on vendor assurances without independent verification
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 sheetA.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance · A.8.31 Separation of development, test and production environments