What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 6.2.2 Annual secure software training for developers?

Secure coding training curriculum mapped to the languages and frameworks in use; Training completion records for every developer within the last 12 months; Materials on operating the SAST, DAST or SCA tools the team uses; Developer roster reconciled against training records; Interview notes confirming developers know where to get secure coding guidance.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 6.2.2?

Generic security awareness course used in place of language-specific secure coding training

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

`6.2.2` Annual secure software training for developers

Staff who develop bespoke and custom software must receive training at least every 12 months that: addresses software security relevant to their job and to the development languages they use; covers techniques for secure coding and for designing secure software; and, where security testing tools are in use, explains how to operate those tools to find vulnerabilities in software. It applies to all entities with in-house or contracted developers of bespoke and custom software. Objective under the customized approach: developers stay current on secure development practice, software security and attacks aimed at the languages, frameworks or applications they build, and can obtain help and guidance when they need it.

Source: PCI DSS v4.0.1, 6.2.2. 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

HR system / LMS

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

Training completion records for every developer within the last 12 months · HR system / LMS

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Interview notes confirming developers know where to get secure coding guidance · HR system / LMS

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Secure coding training curriculum mapped to the languages and frameworks in use · HR system / LMS
Materials on operating the SAST, DAST or SCA tools the team uses · HR system / LMS
Developer roster reconciled against training records · HR system / LMS

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 1 system-held artefact from your HR system / LMS on a schedule; put the documents under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Generic security awareness course used in place of language-specific secure coding training
Contract developers and new starters missed the annual cycle
Training ignores the static analysis tool the team actually runs in the pipeline

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

6.2.1 Secure development of bespoke and custom software · 6.2.3 Code review before release