EvidenceSheet

SI-3 Malicious Code Protection

a. Implement Selection (one or more): signature-based; non-signature-based malicious code protection mechanisms at system entry and exit points to detect and eradicate malicious code; b. Automatically update malicious code protection mechanisms as new releases are available in accordance with organizational configuration management policy and procedures; c. Configure malicious code protection mechanisms to: 1. Perform periodic scans of the system organization-defined frequency and real-time scans of files from external sources at Selection (one or more): endpoint; network entry and exit points as the files are downloaded, opened, or executed in accordance with organizational policy; and 2. Selection (one or more): block malicious code; quarantine malicious code; take [organization-defined action]; and send alert to organization-defined personnel or roles in response to malicious code detection; and d. Address the receipt of false positives during malicious code detection and eradication and the resulting potential impact on the availability of the system.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, SI-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
1
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

  • Scan results from malicious code protection mechanisms · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Records of malicious code protection updates · Document repository
  • Test of Organizational processes for employing, updating, and configuring malicious code protection mechanisms; organizational processes for addressing false positives and resulting potential impacts; mechanisms supporting and/or implementing, employing, updating, and configuring malicious code protection m · 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
  • Configuration management policy and procedures · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Procedures addressing malicious code protection · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Malicious code protection mechanisms · Document repository
  • System design documentation · Document repository
  • System configuration settings and associated documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 1 system-held artefact from your Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling 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

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(7) Flaw Remediation | Root Cause Analysis · SI-3(4) Malicious Code Protection | Updates Only by Privileged Users