What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SA-22 Unsupported System Components?

Inventory with support status and end-of-support dates; Replacement plans and funding; Approvals and mitigations for continued use; Alternative support arrangements where used.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SA-22?

support status untracked until a vulnerability is published

NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 (supply chain) · C-SCRM Family: System and Services Acquisition

`SA-22` Unsupported System Components

Manages components the supplier no longer supports, which is where supply chain risk quietly accumulates.

Source: NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 (supply chain), SA-22. 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 NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 (supply chain) in the compliance library.

artefacts

held by a system

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. 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

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Inventory with support status and end-of-support dates · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Replacement plans and funding · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Approvals and mitigations for continued use · Document repository
Alternative support arrangements where used · 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

support status untracked until a vulnerability is published
continued use with no approval or compensating control

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

SA-21 Developer Screening · SC-1 Policy and Procedures