What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on PL-8(2) Security and Privacy Architectures | Supplier Diversity?

Security and privacy planning policy; Procedures addressing information security and privacy architecture development; Enterprise architecture documentation; Information security and privacy architecture documentation; System security plan; Privacy plan.

What is the most common gap auditors find on PL-8(2)?

Controls at defined layers come from the same supplier, removing supplier diversity

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · PL - Planning

`PL-8(2)` Security and Privacy Architectures | Supplier Diversity

Require that organization-defined controls allocated to organization-defined locations and architectural layers are obtained from different suppliers.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, PL-8(2). 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

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

Test of Organizational processes for obtaining information security and privacy safeguards from different suppliers · Vendor register / contract repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Security and privacy planning policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing information security and privacy architecture development · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Enterprise architecture documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Information security and privacy architecture documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System security plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Privacy plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Security and privacy CONOPS for the system · Policy repository / GRC workspace
IT acquisitions policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace

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

Controls at defined layers come from the same supplier, removing supplier diversity
The controls and layers requiring different suppliers were never defined

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

PL-8(1) Security and Privacy Architectures | Defense in Depth · PL-9 Central Management