What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on PW.1.1 Design Software to Meet Security Requirements?

Threat model artifacts per significant feature; Design review records; Linkage between threat model findings and code changes; Training records for threat modelling facilitators.

What is the most common gap auditors find on PW.1.1?

threat models produced once at feature start, never updated

NIST SP 800-218 (SSDF) · Produce Well Secured Software

`PW.1.1` Design Software to Meet Security Requirements

Design software so that it meets security requirements and mitigates known risks from the start. Use threat modelling to identify how an attacker could abuse the system and feed mitigations back into the design.

Source: NIST SP 800-218 (SSDF), PW.1.1. 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 800-218 (SSDF) in the compliance library.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Document repository

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

Design review records · Document repository
Training records for threat modelling facilitators · Physical access / facilities

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Threat model artifacts per significant feature · Document repository
Linkage between threat model findings and code changes · Document repository

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

threat models produced once at feature start, never updated
no linkage from threat model findings to backlog tickets
only the security team performs modelling

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

PS.3.2 Software Bill of Materials · PW.1.2 Track Security Requirements, Risks, and Decisions