What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SI-8 Spam Protection?

System and information integrity policy; System and information integrity procedures; Configuration management policies and procedures (CM-01); Procedures addressing spam protection; Spam protection mechanisms; Records of spam protection updates.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SI-8?

Spam protection exists at the mail gateway only and not at other entry and exit points that carry messages

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

`SI-8` Spam Protection

a. Employ spam protection mechanisms at system entry and exit points to detect and act on unsolicited messages; and b. Update spam protection mechanisms when new releases are available in accordance with organizational configuration management policy and procedures.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, SI-8. 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

Records of spam protection updates · Document repository
System audit records · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Test of Organizational processes for implementing spam protection; mechanisms supporting and/or implementing spam protection · 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 policies and procedures (CM-01) · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing spam protection · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Spam protection mechanisms · Document repository
System design documentation · 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

Spam protection exists at the mail gateway only and not at other entry and exit points that carry messages
Spam filtering engines run outdated rule sets because updates are not tied to configuration management

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(17) Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity | Runtime Application Self-protection · SI-8(2) Spam Protection | Automatic Updates