What is the most common gap auditors find on SI-7(2)?

Integrity discrepancies are written to local logs with no automated notification to the defined personnel

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

`SI-7(2)` Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity | Automated Notifications of Integrity Violations

Q: What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SI-7(2) Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity | Automated Notifications of Integrity Violations?

System and information integrity policy; System and information integrity procedures; Procedures addressing software, firmware, and information integrity; Personally identifiable information processing policy; System design documentation; System configuration settings and associated documentation.

Employ automated tools that provide notification to organization-defined personnel or roles upon discovering discrepancies during integrity verification.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, SI-7(2). 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

Records of integrity scans · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Automated tools supporting alerts and notifications for integrity discrepancies · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Test of Software, firmware, and information integrity verification tools; mechanisms providing integrity discrepancy notifications · 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 software, firmware, and information integrity · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Personally identifiable information processing policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System design documentation · Document repository
System configuration settings and associated documentation · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Integrity verification tools and associated documentation · Document repository

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 2 system-held artefacts 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

Integrity discrepancies are written to local logs with no automated notification to the defined personnel
Automated integrity notifications are configured but routed to a decommissioned distribution list

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-7(1) Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity | Integrity Checks · SI-7(3) Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity | Centrally Managed Integrity Tools