What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on A.8.30 Outsourced development?

Statement of Applicability entry for control A.8.30, showing inclusion or justified exclusion, implementation status and the risks it treats; Development contracts covering intellectual property, secure design, coding and testing obligations, right to audit, development environment security and legal compliance; The threat model or security requirements provided to the external developer; Acceptance test records for delivered software, including checks for malicious content and known vulnerabilities; Supplier assurance reports demonstrating minimum security and privacy capabilities.

What is the most common gap auditors find on A.8.30?

Contracts focus on functionality and deadlines with no secure development obligations

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 · Technological controls

`A.8.30` Outsourced development

When another party develops systems for the organization, the organization is to steer that work, watch it and review it. Purpose (stated in ISO/IEC 27002:2022): ensures the organization's required security measures are implemented in outsourced system development. As an Annex A reference control, it is compared with the controls determined in risk treatment (6.1.3 c) and recorded in the Statement of Applicability as included or excluded, with the justification and implementation status (6.1.3 d); implementation guidance is ISO/IEC 27002:2022 8.30.

Source: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, A.8.30. 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 ISO/IEC 27001:2022 in the compliance library.

Clauses 4 to 10 are the management-system requirements: none of them can be excluded when an organisation claims conformity. The 93 Annex A controls are a reference set: one may be excluded with a justification in the Statement of Applicability. Certification bodies assess conformity; the evidence lists here are what auditors commonly ask for, not a list the standard prescribes.

artefacts

held by a system

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. 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

Acceptance test records for delivered software, including checks for malicious content and known vulnerabilities · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Supplier assurance reports demonstrating minimum security and privacy capabilities · Vendor register / contract repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Statement of Applicability entry for control A.8.30, showing inclusion or justified exclusion, implementation status and the risks it treats · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Development contracts covering intellectual property, secure design, coding and testing obligations, right to audit, development environment security and legal compliance · Vendor register / contract repository
The threat model or security requirements provided to the external developer · Document repository

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

Contracts focus on functionality and deadlines with no secure development obligations
Delivered code is accepted without any security testing
No escrow exists for critical software from small suppliers
Sub-contracted developers further down the chain are unknown and unmanaged

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

A.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance · A.8.31 Separation of development, test and production environments