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

SA-4(7) Acquisition Process | NIAP-approved Protection Profiles

(a) Limit the use of commercially provided information assurance and information assurance-enabled information technology products to those products that have been successfully evaluated against a National Information Assurance partnership (NIAP)-approved Protection Profile for a specific technology type, if such a profile exists; and (b) Require, if no NIAP-approved Protection Profile exists for a specific technology type but a commercially provided information technology product relies on cryptographic functionality to enforce its security policy, that the cryptographic module is FIPS-validated or NSA-approved.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, SA-4(7). 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
1
at each review
hard
to go live
Document repository
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 selecting and employing products/services evaluated against a NIAP-approved protection profile or FIPS-validated products · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Supply chain risk management plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • System and services acquisition policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Procedures addressing the integration of security requirements, descriptions, and criteria into the acquisition process · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Solicitation documents · Document repository
  • Acquisition documentation · Document repository
  • Acquisition contracts for the system, system component, or system service · Vendor register / contract repository
  • List of deployed IT products/solutions · Document repository
  • NAIP-approved protection profiles · Document repository
  • FIPS-validation information for cryptographic functionality · Document repository

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-4(6) Acquisition Process | Use of Information Assurance Products · SA-4(8) Acquisition Process | Continuous Monitoring Plan for Controls