What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SI-3(10) Malicious Code Protection | Malicious Code Analysis?

System and information integrity policy; System and information integrity procedures; Procedures addressing malicious code protection; Procedures addressing incident response; Procedures addressing flaw remediation; System design documentation.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SI-3(10)?

Malicious code characteristics and behavior are not analyzed with defined tools and techniques

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

`SI-3(10)` Malicious Code Protection | Malicious Code Analysis

(a) Employ the following tools and techniques to analyze the characteristics and behavior of malicious code: organization-defined tools and techniques; and (b) Incorporate the results from malicious code analysis into organizational incident response and flaw remediation processes.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, SI-3(10). 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

Results from malicious code analyses · Document repository
Test of Organizational process for incident response; organizational process for flaw remediation; mechanisms supporting and/or implementing malicious code protection capabilities; tools and techniques for the analysis of malicious code characteristics and behavior · Document repository

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 malicious code protection · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing incident response · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing flaw remediation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System design documentation · Document repository
Malicious code protection mechanisms, tools, and techniques · Document repository
System configuration settings and associated documentation · 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

Malicious code characteristics and behavior are not analyzed with defined tools and techniques
Analysis results are not incorporated into incident response and flaw remediation

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-3(8) Malicious Code Protection | Detect Unauthorized Commands · SI-4 System Monitoring