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

System and services acquisition policy; Procedures addressing the replacement or continued use of unsupported system components; Documented evidence of replacing unsupported system components; Documented approvals (including justification) for the continued use of unsupported system components; System security plan; Supply chain risk management plan.

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

Components past developer or vendor end of support remain in service without a replacement plan

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

`SA-22` Unsupported System Components

a. Replace system components when support for the components is no longer available from the developer, vendor, or manufacturer; or b. Provide the following options for alternative sources for continued support for unsupported components Selection (one or more): in-house support; [organization-defined support from external providers].

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, 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 800-53 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

Documented approvals (including justification) for the continued use of unsupported system components · Document repository
Test of Organizational processes for replacing unsupported system components; mechanisms supporting and/or implementing the replacement of unsupported system components · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

System and services acquisition policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing the replacement or continued use of unsupported system components · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Documented evidence of replacing unsupported system components · Document repository
System security plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Supply chain risk 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

Components past developer or vendor end of support remain in service without a replacement plan
No in-house or external alternative support arrangement is documented for unsupported components still in use

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 · SA-23 Specialization