Search every question across sub-FAQs

Use code scanning when your secure development process calls for code analysis, code review, or executable testing to find issues before release. NIST SP 800-218 recommends deciding whether review and analysis should be used, and it also recommends testing executable code to find vulnerabilities not identified earlier.

The decision should be tied to your organization’s secure coding standards and to the stage of the software. If code scanning is used, keep the results, the triage decisions, and the recommended remediations in your workflow or issue tracking system.

Apply NIST SP 800-218 SSDF criteria to document code scanning evidence that can sustain review: define covered repositories and scan types, retain findings and remediation records, assign ownership, document accepted gaps, and set a reassessment trigger.

Handle components by defining the exact scope, owner, source-linked requirement, evidence artifact, and change trigger before making a public, customer-facing, audit, procurement, or internal control claim.

The useful answer is not just whether components is mentioned. It should explain what action is required, which source supports it, who owns it, and what evidence proves the current state.

Keep the evidence practical and reviewable. A reader should be able to identify who owns the decision, which source supports it, what artifact proves it, and when it needs to be revisited.

Do not rely on hidden assumptions or generic compliance labels. Public content should stand on external source URLs and visible explanation.

Handle release gates by defining the exact scope, owner, source-linked requirement, evidence artifact, and change trigger before making a public, customer-facing, audit, procurement, or internal control claim.

A practical release gate should verify that the software has met the relevant security requirements, that design or code review and testing have been performed where required, and that supporting artifacts such as release integrity or provenance information are ready for release or downstream assurance use.

Apply NIST SP 800-218 SSDF criteria to turn release gating into implementation work: define the release decision, attach source evidence, assign ownership, document gaps, and set a reassessment trigger.

NIST SP 800-218 says to use forms of risk modeling - such as threat modeling, attack modeling, or attack surface mapping - to help assess the security risk for the software.

In practice, that means building the threat model early enough to inform design decisions, then keeping the model current as the software changes. The SSDF also says to track the software's security requirements, risks, and design decisions, including approved exceptions, so the team can justify choices and revisit them later.

Use threat modeling evidence to show how the team identifies design risks, documents mitigations, assigns ownership, and reviews the model when architecture, dependencies, suppliers, or release scope changes.

Handle vulnerability disclosure with a simple workflow: provide a clear reporting path, receive and triage the report, confirm whether the issue is credible, assign an owner for investigation and response, track remediation or other risk response, and communicate the outcome to the right stakeholders.

The useful answer is not just whether vulnerability disclosure is mentioned. It should explain what action is required, which source supports it, who owns it, and what evidence proves the current state.

In practice, teams should make it easy for security researchers, customers, suppliers, and internal staff to report possible vulnerabilities, then use a defined triage flow to decide whether the report is valid, how urgent it is, and whether the next step is a fix, a mitigation, or a disclosure response.

Vulnerability disclosure evidence should show how reports are received, triaged, assigned, remediated, communicated, and reviewed under the team's NIST SP 800-218 SSDF implementation.

Keep evidence that shows the build pipeline, build artifacts, and release outputs were protected from tampering and verified before distribution.

Useful records include provenance data such as an SBOM, integrity verification information such as hashes or signatures, and records showing the approved build configuration or controlled environment used for the release.

Apply NIST SSDF SP 800-218 criteria to turn build-integrity controls into implementation work: define the decision, attach source and build evidence, assign ownership, document gaps, and set a reassessment trigger.

Keep secure coding evidence that shows what was required, who approved it, which source supports it, and how the result was verified.

For most teams, that evidence should include code review records, automated analysis or test results, vulnerability scan reports, exception approvals, release or build approvals, and records of remediation or risk acceptance. The useful answer should connect the evidence to a release, build, coding, vulnerability, or assurance workflow rather than leaving it as a generic compliance statement.

Apply NIST SSDF SP 800-218 criteria to turn secure coding evidence into implementation work: define the decision, attach source and build evidence, assign ownership, document gaps, and set a reassessment trigger.

Provenance matters because teams need to prove which source, dependency, build process, and approval path produced a software artifact.

Treat provenance as part of secure software development: define the scope, name the accountable owner, attach evidence, and set the next review trigger.

Apply NIST SP 800-218 SSDF criteria to turn provenance into implementation work: define artifact lineage, attach source and build evidence, assign ownership, document gaps, and set a reassessment trigger.