What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on PW.8.1 Executable Testing for Security?

DAST integration in CI or scheduled scans; Fuzz testing harnesses for critical parsers; Annual penetration test reports; Remediation tracker tied to test findings.

What is the most common gap auditors find on PW.8.1?

DAST run only against pre production with no realistic data

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

`PW.8.1` Executable Testing for Security

Test executable software to detect vulnerabilities using dynamic application security testing, fuzz testing, and penetration testing on a defined cadence. Tie test scope to risk and feature changes.

Source: NIST SP 800-218 (SSDF), PW.8.1. 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

Annual penetration test reports · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

DAST integration in CI or scheduled scans · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Fuzz testing harnesses for critical parsers · Document repository
Remediation tracker tied to test findings · 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

DAST run only against pre production with no realistic data
no fuzz testing despite parsing untrusted input
penetration test findings tracked separately from product backlog

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.7.2 Perform Code Review and Analysis · PW.8.2 Execute Security Testing