What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on PW.4.4 Verify Acquired Components Meet Security Requirements?

Software Composition Analysis configuration; Vulnerability database integration; Component approval workflow records; License compliance checks.

What is the most common gap auditors find on PW.4.4?

vulnerability scans run but findings never break the build

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

`PW.4.4` Verify Acquired Components Meet Security Requirements

Verify that third party and open source components meet the same security requirements applied to in house code. Use static analysis, dependency analysis, and known vulnerability databases to support the decision.

Source: NIST SP 800-218 (SSDF), PW.4.4. 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

easy

to go live

Cloud console / configuration management

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

Software Composition Analysis configuration · Cloud console / configuration management
License compliance checks · Document repository

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Component approval workflow records · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Vulnerability database integration · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Automate the pull from your Cloud console / configuration management. Configuration snapshots and change history from the cloud console or IaC repository, diffed against the baseline.

Common gaps auditors find

vulnerability scans run but findings never break the build
license risks not assessed
newly added dependencies bypass review

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

PW.4.2 Maintain Well-Secured In-House Components · PW.5.1 Secure Coding Practices