6.2.3.1 Code review findings corrected
If manual code reviews are performed, code changes are reviewed by individuals other than the originating author who are knowledgeable about code review techniques and secure coding, code reviews ensure code is developed
5
artefacts
0
held by a system
4
at each review
hard
to go live
Source control / CI pipeline
where the evidence lives
teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review
system holds itEvidence a system already holds
none for this control
periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review
- Reviewer competency records · HR system / LMS
- Code review checklists completed · Source control / CI pipeline
- Corrections evidence in version control · Document repository
- Release sign-off · Source control / CI pipeline
governing documentDocuments that govern the control
- Management approval before release · Policy repository / GRC workspace
First move
This control is evidenced by people and documents, not systems. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date. Do not try to automate it.
Common gaps auditors find
- Reviewers without secure-coding training
- Findings closed without fix
- Management approval missing
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 sheet6.2.3 Custom software reviewed prior to production · 6.2.4 Coding practices prevent common attacks