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

6.2.3 Code review before release

Before bespoke and custom software is released to production or to customers, it must be reviewed to find and fix possible coding vulnerabilities, such that: reviews confirm the code follows secure coding guidelines; reviews look for vulnerabilities that are already known as well as newly emerging ones; and suitable fixes are made before release. It applies to all entities. Applicability: the review requirement covers every piece of custom and bespoke software, whether public facing or internal, within the development lifecycle; public-facing web applications additionally fall under Requirement 6.4; reviews may be manual, automated or both. Objective under the customized approach: coding vulnerabilities in bespoke and custom software cannot be used to exploit it.

Source: PCI DSS v4.0.1, 6.2.3. 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.

5
artefacts
2
held by a system
2
at each review
moderate
to go live
Source control / CI pipeline
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

  • Pull request or merge request records showing review before merge to the release branch · Source control / CI pipeline
  • Static analysis scan results for recent releases with findings tracked to closure · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Secure coding guideline document used as the review baseline · Source control / CI pipeline
  • Sample of released changes traced to completed reviews and fixed findings · Source control / CI pipeline

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Code review procedure referencing the secure coding guidelines in force · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 2 of 5 artefacts that already live in a system (Source control / CI pipeline); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

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

6.2.2 Annual secure software training for developers · 6.2.3.1 Manual code review independence and approval