What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 6.1.2 Requirement 6 roles and responsibilities assigned?

RACI or responsibility matrix covering development, patching, code review and change approval; Job descriptions for developers, release managers and system administrators referencing Requirement 6 duties; Signed acknowledgements of assigned security responsibilities; Interview records with engineering leads and change approvers.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 6.1.2?

Nobody is named as owner for monitoring vulnerability sources or ranking vulnerabilities

PCI DSS v4.0.1 · Req 6: Secure Systems and Software

`6.1.2` Requirement 6 roles and responsibilities assigned

The roles and responsibilities for carrying out the activities in Requirement 6 must be documented, allocated to named people or functions, and understood by those who hold them. This includes accountability for secure coding, code review, vulnerability ranking, patch installation, web application protection and change approval. It applies to all entities. Customized approach objective: day-to-day ownership of every Requirement 6 activity is allocated, and the people holding those duties answer for their successful and continuous operation.

Source: PCI DSS v4.0.1, 6.1.2. 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

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

Signed acknowledgements of assigned security responsibilities · HR system / LMS
Interview records with engineering leads and change approvers · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

RACI or responsibility matrix covering development, patching, code review and change approval · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Job descriptions for developers, release managers and system administrators referencing Requirement 6 duties · 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

Nobody is named as owner for monitoring vulnerability sources or ranking vulnerabilities
The RACI names teams that were reorganised and no longer exist
Developers cannot describe who approves a release to production

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

6.1.1 Requirement 6 policies and procedures maintained and communicated · 6.2.1 Secure development of bespoke and custom software