What is the most common gap auditors find on SA-10(2)?

No alternate configuration management process exists where the developer has no dedicated CM team

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · SA - System and Services Acquisition

`SA-10(2)` Developer Configuration Management | Alternative Configuration Management Processes

Q: What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SA-10(2) Developer Configuration Management | Alternative Configuration Management Processes?

System and services acquisition policy; System and services acquisition procedures; Configuration management policy; Configuration management plan; Solicitation documentation; Acquisition documentation.

Provide an alternate configuration management process using organizational personnel in the absence of a dedicated developer configuration management team.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, SA-10(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 monitoring developer configuration management; mechanisms supporting and/or implementing the monitoring of developer configuration management · SIEM / log platform

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

System and services acquisition policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System and services acquisition procedures · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Configuration management policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Configuration management plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Solicitation documentation · Document repository
Acquisition documentation · Document repository
Service level agreements · Vendor register / contract repository
Acquisition contracts for the system, system component, or system service · Vendor register / contract repository
System developer configuration management plan · 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

No alternate configuration management process exists where the developer has no dedicated CM team
Organizational personnel assigned to alternate CM lack defined responsibilities

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-10(1) Developer Configuration Management | Software and Firmware Integrity Verification · SA-10(3) Developer Configuration Management | Hardware Integrity Verification