What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 9.5.1.2 Periodic inspection of POI device surfaces?

POI inspection procedure with a checklist of what to examine; Completed inspection logs per device showing date, inspector and result; Reference photographs or marking records for each device model; Records of devices found tampered with and the response taken; Observation of staff performing an inspection.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 9.5.1.2?

Inspection logs signed off without serial numbers being checked

PCI DSS v4.0.1 · Req 9: Restrict Physical Access

`9.5.1.2` Periodic inspection of POI device surfaces

The surfaces of POI devices must be inspected periodically to detect tampering and unauthorized substitution. The guidance offers methods such as comparing serial numbers or other characteristics with the device list, comparing against photographs of known-good devices, or checking security markings. The guidance lists signs of tampering including unexpected cables or attachments, missing or altered security labels, broken or differently coloured casing, and changed serial numbers or markings. Applicability: deployed card-present POI devices. Customized approach objective: POI devices cannot be tampered with, swapped without authorization or fitted with skimming attachments without prompt detection.

Source: PCI DSS v4.0.1, 9.5.1.2. 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

Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)

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

Completed inspection logs per device showing date, inspector and result · Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Reference photographs or marking records for each device model · Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)
Records of devices found tampered with and the response taken · Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)
Observation of staff performing an inspection · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

POI inspection procedure with a checklist of what to examine · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 1 system-held artefact from your Endpoint management (MDM / EDR) 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

Inspection logs signed off without serial numbers being checked
Unattended terminals at remote sites rarely or never inspected
Staff unaware of what a skimming overlay looks like

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

9.5.1.1 Current register of POI devices · 9.5.1.2.1 Risk-based frequency and type of POI inspections