What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SI-2(5) Flaw Remediation | Automatic Software and Firmware Updates?

System and information integrity policy; System and information integrity procedures; Procedures addressing flaw remediation; Mechanisms supporting flaw remediation and automatic software/firmware updates; System design documentation; System configuration settings and associated documentation.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SI-2(5)?

The defined security-relevant updates are not installed automatically on the defined components

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · SI - System and Information Integrity

`SI-2(5)` Flaw Remediation | Automatic Software and Firmware Updates

Install organization-defined security-relevant software and firmware updates automatically to organization-defined system components.

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

Test of Mechanisms implementing automatic software/firmware updates · Document repository

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Records of recent security-relevant software and firmware updates automatically installed to system components · Document repository
System audit records · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

System and information integrity policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System and information integrity procedures · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing flaw remediation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Mechanisms supporting flaw remediation and automatic software/firmware updates · Document repository
System design documentation · Document repository
System configuration settings and associated documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System security plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 1 system-held artefact from your Document repository on a schedule; put the documents under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

The defined security-relevant updates are not installed automatically on the defined components
The updates and components for automatic installation 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

SI-2(4) Flaw Remediation | Automated Patch Management Tools · SI-2(6) Flaw Remediation | Removal of Previous Versions of Software and Firmware