EvidenceSheet

8.30 Outsourced development

Requires the organisation to direct, monitor and review the activities involved in outsourced system development. Secondary commentary notes that explicit direction and review were added in the 2022 revision in response

5
artefacts
0
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

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Contractual security requirements imposed on the development supplier, covering secure development practice, testing, code ownership and the right to review · Source control / CI pipeline
  • Evidence of monitoring during delivery, including progress and security reviews rather than acceptance testing alone · SIEM / log platform
  • Review evidence of the delivered code and its components, including independent testing · Vendor register / contract repository
  • Records of the handling of intellectual property, escrow and access to the code after delivery · Vendor register / contract repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Evidence of direction given, such as agreed standards, architecture constraints and acceptance criteria · Vendor register / contract 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

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

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