What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 5.2.3 Periodic evaluation of components not at risk from malware?

Documented list of system components deemed not at risk from malware; Most recent periodic evaluation records showing threat research for each system type and the conclusion reached; Sources consulted, such as vendor security notices and industry vulnerability alerts; Reconciliation between the not-at-risk list and the hosts with no anti-malware agent.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 5.2.3?

Not-at-risk list is out of date and does not match the hosts without agents

PCI DSS v4.0.1 · Req 5: Anti-Malware

`5.2.3` Periodic evaluation of components not at risk from malware

Any system components treated as not at risk from malware must be evaluated on a periodic basis, and the evaluation must include: a documented list of every system component considered not at risk; identification and assessment of evolving malware threats relevant to those components; and confirmation of whether those components still do not need anti-malware protection. Determinations should be supported by vendor resources, best practice and evidence from industry, and malware trends should be fed into the vulnerability identification work under Requirement 6.3.1. Applicability: covers the components on which no anti-malware solution is deployed under Requirement 5.2.1. Objective under the customized approach: the entity stays aware of changing malware threats so that systems left without malware protection are not exposed to infection.

Source: PCI DSS v4.0.1, 5.2.3. 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 PCI DSS v4.0.1 in the compliance library.

Version 4.0.1 is the active version; 4.0 has been retired. Appendix A1 applies only to multi-tenant service providers, A2 only to card-present POS POI terminals that still use SSL or early TLS, and A3 only when a payment brand or acquirer requires it. Which requirements apply to you follows your validation type.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

moderate

to go live

Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

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

Sources consulted, such as vendor security notices and industry vulnerability alerts · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Most recent periodic evaluation records showing threat research for each system type and the conclusion reached · Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Documented list of system components deemed not at risk from malware · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Reconciliation between the not-at-risk list and the hosts with no anti-malware agent · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 1 of 4 artefacts that already live in a system (Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Not-at-risk list is out of date and does not match the hosts without agents
Evaluation is a one-line statement that the operating system is safe, with no review of emerging threats
No plan to add protection when a system type becomes a malware target

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

5.2.2 Anti-malware detects and handles all known malware · 5.2.3.1 Targeted risk analysis sets evaluation frequency