FedRAMP High SA-11(2): Developer Testing and Evaluation | Threat Modeling and Vulnerability Analyses. Require the developer of the system, system component, or system service to perform threat modeling and vulnerability analyses during development and the subsequent testing

What else in your programme already covers this

This control maps to 23 controls across 12 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.

SOC 2 · 4 controls

SOC2-CC3.2 COSO principle 7: Identifies risks and analyzes to determine how managed
SOC2-CC5.1 COSO principle 10: Selects and develops control activities to mitigate risks
SOC2-CC8.1 Change management processes are in place
SOC2-CC9.1 Identifies, selects and develops risk mitigation activities

ISO 27001:2022 · 3 controls

8.25 Secure development life cycle
8.27 Secure system architecture and engineering principles
8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · 3 controls

NIST800-SA-11 Developer testing and evaluation
NIST800-SA-17 Developer Security and Privacy Architecture and Design. Require the developer of the system, system component, or system service to produce a design specification and security and privacy architecture that: Is consistent with the organization's
NIST800-SA-22 Unsupported System Components

PCI DSS 4.0 · 3 controls

6.2.1 Bespoke and custom software are developed securely, as follows: • Based on industry standards and/or best practices for secure development. • In accordance with PCI DSS (for example, secure authentication and logging). • Incorporating
6.2.4 Coding practices prevent common attacks
6.3.1 Security vulnerabilities are identified and managed as follows: • New security vulnerabilities are identified using industry-recognized sources for security vulnerability information, including alerts from international and national computer emergency response teams (CERTs). • Vulnerabilities

ISO 27002:2022 · 2 controls

8.25 Secure development life cycle
8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance

NIST SP 800-218 · 2 controls

SP800-218-PW.1.1 Design Software to Meet Security Requirements
SP800-218-RV.1.2 Review and Analyze Code for Vulnerabilities

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar · 1 control

SEC01-BP07 Identify threats and prioritize mitigations using a threat model

Azure Security Benchmark · 1 control

ASBv3-DS-1 Conduct threat modeling

C5 (Germany) · 1 control

C5-PSS-02 Identification of Vulnerabilities of the Cloud Service

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 · 1 control

CCM-AIS-05 Automated Application Security Testing

NIST SP 800-172 · 1 control

3.11.1e Threat-Aware Risk Assessment

Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.

You are reading one control. How much of FedRAMP High have you already done?

FedRAMP High SA-11(2) is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of FedRAMP High your existing evidence covers. Hold C5 (Germany) and 119 of 410 FedRAMP High controls already carry evidence.

If you hold C5 (Germany)29% covered · 291 gaps

Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 6 were rejected on the C5 (Germany) pair alone.

See the released pairs, $299 each Browse the graph free