EvidenceSheet

8.28 Secure coding

Requires secure coding principles to be applied to software development.

5
artefacts
0
held by a system
3
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

  • Evidence of application, such as static analysis configuration and results, peer review records and the treatment of findings · SIEM / log platform
  • Records of developer training in secure coding relevant to the languages actually used · HR system / LMS
  • Evidence of the treatment of findings, showing severity thresholds that block a release · Source control / CI pipeline

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • The secure coding standard in use, per language and framework, and evidence it was communicated to developers · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Evidence of control over third party and open source components, including inventory, known vulnerability checking and update process · 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

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

8.27 Secure system architecture and engineering principles · 8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance