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

Systems or components are selected, accepted, modified or updated without prior assessment

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · SR - Supply Chain Risk Management

`SR-5(2)` Acquisition Strategies, Tools, and Methods | Assessments Prior to Selection, Acceptance, Modification, or…

Q: What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SR-5(2) Acquisition Strategies, Tools, and Methods | Assessments Prior to Selection, Acceptance, Modification, or…?

System security plan; System and services acquisition policy; Procedures addressing supply chain protection; Procedures addressing the integration of information security requirements into the acquisition process; Security test and evaluation results; Vulnerability assessment results.

Assess the system, system component, or system service prior to selection, acceptance, modification, or update.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, SR-5(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

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Security test and evaluation results · Document repository
Vulnerability assessment results · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Penetration testing results · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Organizational risk assessment results · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Test of Organizational processes for conducting assessments prior to selection, acceptance, or update; mechanisms supporting and/or implementing the conducting of assessments prior to selection, acceptance, or update · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

System security plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System and services acquisition policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing supply chain protection · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing the integration of information security requirements into the acquisition process · 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

Systems or components are selected, accepted, modified or updated without prior assessment
Assessment results are not recorded before acceptance

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

SR-5(1) Acquisition Strategies, Tools, and Methods | Adequate Supply · SR-6 Supplier Assessments and Reviews