What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on CA-8(3) Penetration Testing | Facility Penetration Testing?

Assessment, authorization, and monitoring policy; Procedures addressing penetration testing; Procedures addressing red team exercises; Assessment plan; Results of red team exercises; Penetration test report.

What is the most common gap auditors find on CA-8(3)?

Facility penetration testing of physical access points has not been performed at the defined frequency

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · CA - Assessment, Authorization, and Monitoring

`CA-8(3)` Penetration Testing | Facility Penetration Testing

Employ a penetration testing process that includes organization-defined frequency Selection (one or more): announced; unannounced attempts to bypass or circumvent controls associated with physical access points to the facility.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, CA-8(3). 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 800-53 Rev 5 in the compliance library.

Base controls and their enhancements. Which apply follows the baseline you are assessed against (for example FedRAMP Moderate or High, or the low, moderate and high baselines of SP 800-53B). Text in square brackets is a parameter your organisation sets.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

SIEM / log platform

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

Rules of engagement · SIEM / log platform
Test of Automated mechanisms supporting the employment of red team exercises · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Procedures addressing red team exercises · SIEM / log platform
Results of red team exercises · SIEM / log platform
Penetration test report · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Assessment report · SIEM / log platform
Assessment evidence · SIEM / log platform

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Assessment, authorization, and monitoring policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing penetration testing · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Assessment plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace

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

Facility penetration testing of physical access points has not been performed at the defined frequency
The selection of announced or unannounced facility tests was never documented

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

CA-8(2) Penetration Testing | Red Team Exercises · CA-9 Internal System Connections