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

SA-11(3) Developer Testing and Evaluation | Independent Verification of Assessment Plans and Evidence

(a) Require an independent agent satisfying organization-defined independence criteria to verify the correct implementation of the developer security and privacy assessment plans and the evidence produced during testing and evaluation; and (b) Verify that the independent agent is provided with sufficient information to complete the verification process or granted the authority to obtain such information.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, SA-11(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.

10
artefacts
0
held by a system
2
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

  • Independent verification and validation reports · Document repository
  • Test of Organizational processes for monitoring developer security testing and evaluation; mechanisms supporting and/or implementing the monitoring of developer security testing and evaluation · 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
  • Procedures addressing system developer security testing · 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
  • Security and privacy assessment plans · 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

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-11(2) Developer Testing and Evaluation | Threat Modeling and Vulnerability Analyses · SA-11(4) Developer Testing and Evaluation | Manual Code Reviews