What is the most common gap auditors find on GV.SC-03?

TPRM operates as a separate silo

`GV.SC-03` Cybersecurity supply chain risk management is integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management…

Q: What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on GV.SC-03 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management is integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management…?

Supply chain risks recorded in the enterprise register; Combined risk reporting incorporating supplier risk; Reconciliation between TPRM and enterprise risk teams; Joint scenario planning exercises; Board reporting on supply chain exposure.

Cybersecurity supply chain risk management is integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management, risk assessment, and improvement processes

Source: NIST CSF 2.0, GV.SC-03. 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 CSF 2.0 in the compliance library.

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

Joint scenario planning exercises · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Supply chain risks recorded in the enterprise register · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Combined risk reporting incorporating supplier risk · Vendor register / contract repository
Reconciliation between TPRM and enterprise risk teams · Document repository
Board reporting on supply chain exposure · 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

TPRM operates as a separate silo
Risk taxonomy differs from enterprise
Board only sees supplier risk after incidents
Scenarios omit cascading vendor failures

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

GV.SC-02 Cybersecurity roles and responsibilities for suppliers, customers, and partners are established… · GV.SC-04 Suppliers are known and prioritized by criticality