@cyclonedx/cdxgen

{ "metadata": { "licenses": [] }, "definitions": { "standards": [ { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1", "name": "PCI Secure Software Lifecycle (Secure SLC) Requirements and Assessment Procedures", "version": "1.1", "description": "PCI Secure SLC provides a baseline of security requirements with corresponding assessment procedures and guidance to help software vendors design, develop, and maintain secure software throughout the software lifecycle.", "owner": "PCI Security Standards Council", "requirements": [ { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1", "identifier": "1", "title": "Security Responsibilities and Resources", "text": "The software vendor’s senior leadership team establishes formal responsibility and authority for the security of the software vendor’s products and services. The software vendor allocates resources to execute the strategy and ensure that personnel are appropriately skilled." }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.1", "identifier": "1.1", "text": "Overall responsibility for the security of the software vendor’s products and services is assigned by the vendor’s senior leadership team.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1", "descriptions": [ "The formal assignment of responsibility by the software vendor’s senior leadership team ensures strategic-level visibility into and influence over the vendor’s software security practices. Senior leadership typically represents those individuals or teams with the responsibility and authority to make strategic business decisions for the software vendor organization. In many cases, senior leadership teams are comprised of members of the executive team such as the chief executive officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), chief technology officer (CTO), chief information officer (CIO), chief risk officer (CRO), or similar roles, but that is not the case in all organizations. The distinct structure of the senior leadership team is ultimately determined by the software vendor.\n\nAssignment of overall responsibility for the vendor’s software security program should include the authority to enforce and execute the organization’s software security strategy. Without appropriate authority, those responsible for the security of the software vendor’s products and services cannot be reasonably held accountable for ensuring the organization’s security strategy is followed. Those responsible for the vendor’s software security should provide periodic updates on the state of the vendor’s software security program and the performance of its strategy to senior leadership. This allows senior leadership to ensure the strategy is being properly prioritized and resourced, and that changes required as a result of its performance are approved in a timely manner.\n\nEvidence to support this control objective might include job descriptions, organization charts, presentations, audio recordings, senior leadership meeting minutes, reports, e-mails, formal communications from senior leadership to the rest of the organization, or any other records that clearly reflect the formal assignment of responsibility and authority, and communications between senior leadership and those responsible for the vendor’s software security program regarding program performance." ] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.1.1", "identifier": "1.1.1", "text": "Accountability for ensuring the security of the software vendor’s products and services is formally assigned to an individual or team by the software vendor’s senior leadership.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.1.2", "identifier": "1.1.2", "text": "Responsibilities include keeping senior leadership informed of security updates, issues, and other matters related to the security of the software vendor’s products and services.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.1.3", "identifier": "1.1.3", "text": "Updates are provided to senior leadership at least annually on the performance of and changes to the software vendor’s software security policy and strategy described in Objective 2.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.2", "identifier": "1.2", "text": "Software security responsibilities are assigned.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1", "descriptions": [ "Individuals (including third-party personnel) involved in the design, development, testing and maintenance of the software vendor’s products and services should be assigned responsibility and accountability for ensuring that software is designed and maintained in accordance with the software vendor’s security strategy and all applicable security requirements, including software-specific requirements. Responsibilities can be assigned to an individual, group, or role; however, individuals assigned to a particular group or role should clearly understand how those software security responsibilities affect their individual job functions, the organization’s security expectations, and the individual’s role in fulfilling those expectations. Individuals assigned software security responsibilities should be able to demonstrate an understanding of their responsibilities and accountability.\n\nEvidence to support this objective might include job descriptions, employee agreements, presentations, company communications, training materials, e-mails, intranet content, or any other documentation or records that clearly and consistently illustrate the assignment of security responsibilities, and the acknowledgement and understanding of those roles and responsibilities." ] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.2.1", "identifier": "1.2.1", "text": "Software security responsibilities are clearly defined and assigned to appropriate individuals or teams, including software development personnel.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.2.2", "identifier": "1.2.2", "text": "Assignment of responsibilities for ensuring the security of the software vendor’s products and services covers the entire software lifecycle.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.2.3", "identifier": "1.2.3", "text": "Personnel are aware of and understand their responsibilities.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.3", "identifier": "1.3", "text": "Software development personnel maintain skills in software security matters relevant to their specific role, responsibility, and job function.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1", "descriptions": [ "To be effective in meeting their software security responsibilities, software development personnel must be trained or have experience in performing such responsibilities and must maintain the appropriate skills to properly carry out those responsibilities.\n\nAt a minimum, all software development personnel must have a basic understanding of general software security concepts and best practices. Individuals with specialized roles and responsibilities should additionally possess specialized skills relevant to the functions they perform. Examples of specialized skills include secure software design (software architects), secure coding techniques (software developers), and security-testing techniques (software testers).\n\nEfforts to maintain those skills may include software vendor- provided training, ongoing participation in local or regional user groups, or the achievement and maintenance of industry-specific certifications. It is up to the software vendor to define the necessary criteria for maintaining appropriate job-specific skills and confirm individual adherence at least annually.\n\nEvidence to support this control objective might include policies and processes, training materials or content, records of on-the-job training or course attendance, individual qualification certificates, continuing education credits, or any other documentation or evidence that clearly and consistently demonstrates that software development personnel possess and maintain appropriate skills and knowledge for their specific job function and responsibilities." ] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.3.1", "identifier": "1.3.1", "text": "A mature process is implemented and maintained for managing and maintaining software security skills for software development personnel.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.3.2", "identifier": "1.3.2", "text": "The skills required for each defined role, responsibility, and job function are clearly defined.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.3.3", "identifier": "1.3.3", "text": "The criteria for maintaining individual skills are clearly defined.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.3.4", "identifier": "1.3.4", "text": "The process includes a review at least annually to ensure software development personnel are maintaining the necessary skills for the security responsibilities they have been assigned.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.3.5", "identifier": "1.3.5", "text": "Software development personnel demonstrate that they possess the skills required for their role, responsibility, or job function.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.3.6", "identifier": "1.3.6", "text": "Software development personnel satisfy the criteria for maintaining their indivudal skills.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-1.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2", "identifier": "2", "title": "Software Security Policy and Strategy", "text": "The software vendor defines, maintains, and communicates a software security policy and a strategy for ensuring the secure design, development, and management of its products and services. Performance against the software security strategy is monitored and tracked.", "descriptions": ["."] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.1", "identifier": "2.1", "text": "Regulatory and industry security and compliance requirements applicable to the software vendor’s operations, products, and services and the data stored, processed, or transmitted by the software vendor are identified and monitored.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2", "descriptions": [ "Many organizations are subject to requirements for the protection of certain types of information and data such as personally identifiable information (PII), cardholder data (CHD), and protected health information (PHI).\n\nSoftware vendors should maintain awareness of evolving industry and regulatory requirements applicable to their operations and products. Maintaining ongoing awareness of external security and compliance obligations allows the software vendor to ensure its processes adequately address those requirements at all times, including whenever those requirements are updated or new requirements are introduced.\n\nEvidence to support this control objective might include documented policies and processes, internal standards, requirement mappings, internal presentations, training materials, or any other documentation or records that clearly and consistently illustrate that the software vendor has made reasonable efforts to understand and monitor its external security and compliance requirements" ] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.1.1", "identifier": "2.1.1", "text": "A mature process exists to identify and monitor external regulatory and industry security and compliance requirements.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.1.2", "identifier": "2.1.2", "text": "The process includes reviewing sources of regulatory and industry security and compliance requirements for changes at least annually.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.1.3", "identifier": "2.1.3", "text": "The process results in an inventory of external regulatory and industry security and compliance requirements.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.1.4", "identifier": "2.1.4", "text": "The inventory is updated as external security and compliance requirements change.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.2", "identifier": "2.2", "text": "A software security policy is defined and establishes the specific rules and goals for ensuring the software vendor’s products and services are designed, developed, and maintained to be secure, resistant to attack, and in a manner that satisfies the software vendor’s security and compliance obligations.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2", "descriptions": [ "Software vendors must establish a company-wide software security policy to ensure that all individuals or teams⎯including relevant business partners⎯involved in software design, development, and maintenance are aware and have a consistent understanding of how the vendor’s software products and services should be securely built and maintained, and how any critical assets should be handled. The software security policy (or policies) should be known and thoroughly understood by those with the responsibility to ensure they are met, as well as those individuals and teams who have the ability to affect the security of the software vendor’s products and services. The software vendor’s senior leadership team should openly support the establishment and enforcement of the software security policy through appropriate communications to software vendor personnel, to reinforce the importance of software security to the vendor organization and its leadership.\n\nEvidence to support this control objective might include documented policies and processes, presentations, mission statements, e-mails, company intranet content, or other formal company communications that clearly and consistently illustrate efforts to ensure appropriate personnel and business partners are aware of and understand the vendor’s software security policy." ] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.2.1", "identifier": "2.2.1", "text": "A software security policy exists and is communicated to appropriate software vendor personnel and business partners, including all software development personnel.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.2.2", "identifier": "2.2.2", "text": "At a minimum, the policy covers all control objectives within this standard (either explicitly or implicitly).", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.2.3", "identifier": "2.2.3", "text": "The policy is defined in sufficient detail such that the security rules and goals are measurable.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.2.4", "identifier": "2.2.4", "text": "The software vendor’s senior leadership team has approved the software security policy.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.2.5", "identifier": "2.2.5", "text": "Software development personnel are aware of and understand the software security policy.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3", "identifier": "2.3", "text": "A formal software security strategy for ensuring the security of the software vendor’s products and services and satisfying its software security policy is established and maintained.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2", "descriptions": [ "A software security strategy is a high-level plan, roadmap, or methodology for ensuring the secure design, development, and maintenance of the software vendor’s products and services, and adherence to the software vendor’s software security policy.\n\nSoftware vendors should either adopt existing or develop their own frameworks or methodologies in accordance with industry-accepted practices for secure software lifecycle management. By aligning its software security strategy with industry-accepted methodologies, the software vendor is less likely to overlook important aspects of secure software lifecycle management.\n\nSoftware vendors that develop their own methodologies should understand how they differ from industry-accepted methodologies, identify any gaps, and ensure that sufficient evidence is maintained to clearly illustrate how their methodologies are at least as effective as those accepted by the industry. \n\nExamples of industry-accepted methodologies that are commonly used as benchmarks for secure software development and management include, but are not limited to, current versions of: ISO/IEC 27034 Application Security Guidelines; Building Security In Maturity Model (BSIMM); OWASP Software Assurance Maturity Model (OpenSAMM); and NIST .Special Publication 800-160 and its Appendixes.\n\nThe software security strategy should evolve as internal factors— such as the software vendor’s business strategy or product/service offerings—or external factors—such as external security and compliance requirements—evolve. Therefore, the software security strategy is not static and should be periodically reviewed and updated to maintain alignment with business needs and priorities.\n\nEvidence to support this requirement might include documented security plans or methodologies, presentations, policies and processes, training materials, meeting minutes, interviewer notes, e-mails or executive communications, mappings, or references to industry-accepted methodologies, gap analysis results, or any other records or documentation that clearly and consistently illustrates that the vendor has made a reasonable effort to develop, maintain, and keep current a formal strategy for satisfying the vendor’s software security policy." ] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3.1", "identifier": "2.3.1", "text": "A strategy for ensuring the security of the software vendor’s products and services is defined.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3.2", "identifier": "2.3.2", "text": "The software security strategy clearly outlines how the software security policy is to be satisfied.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3.3", "identifier": "2.3.3", "text": "The software security strategy is based on or aligned with industry-accepted methodologies.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3.4", "identifier": "2.3.4", "text": "The software security strategy covers the entire lifecycle of the software vendor’s products and services.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3.5", "identifier": "2.3.5", "text": "The software security strategy is communicated to appropriate personnel, including software development personnel.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3.6", "identifier": "2.3.6", "text": "The software security strategy is reviewed at least annually and updated as needed (such as when business needs, external drivers, and products and services evolve).", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3.7", "identifier": "2.3.7", "text": "Software development personnel are aware of and understand the software security strategy.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4", "identifier": "2.4", "text": "Software security assurance processes are implemented and maintained throughout the entire software lifecycle.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2", "descriptions": [ "Software security assurance processes are activities that are implemented to carry out the software vendor’s software security strategy and to facilitate secure software design, development, and maintenance. To ensure that security and compliance requirements are met, software security policy is satisfied, and the software vendor’s products and services are secure and resistant to attack, software vendors need to define such processes throughout all phases of the software lifecycle. These may include security “checkpoints,” which are distinct points within the software development process where software is checked to make sure security requirements are met. Examples of software security assurance processes and controls include software-design reviews, automated code reviews, security-specific functional testing, and change-management processes. For organizations that leverage Agile software development methodologies, security checkpoints may be incorporated into the “story” acceptance criteria or the criteria for determining when work is considered “done.”\n\nEvidence to support this requirement might include documented policies and processes, security-control inventories, output from Governance Risk and Compliance (GRC) or other management tools, software-specific requirements documentation, or any other evidence that clearly and consistently identifies the software security assurance processes that have been implemented and illustrates that the security assurance processes are appropriate for the function they are intended to provide. Additionally, evidence to illustrate the software security assurance processes are implemented properly may include system or process outputs such as threat models, security test results, bug tracking data, audit log data, incident response, etc." ] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4.1", "identifier": "2.4.1", "text": "Software security assurance processes are defined, implemented and maintained.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4.2", "identifier": "2.4.2", "text": "An inventory of software security assurance processes is maintained.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4.3", "identifier": "2.4.3", "text": "Software security assurance processes clearly address the specific rules and goals within the software vendor’s software security policy.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4.4", "identifier": "2.4.4", "text": "Software security assurance processes are aligned with the software vendor’s software security strategy", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4.5", "identifier": "2.4.5", "text": "Software vendor personnel, including software development personnel, are assigned responsibility and accountability for the execution and performance of the security assurance process in accordance with Requirement 1.2.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4.6", "identifier": "2.4.6", "text": "The individuals or teams responsible for performing and maintaining each security assurance process are clearly aware of their responsibilities.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4.7", "identifier": "2.4.7", "text": "The results or outcomes of each security assurance process are monitored in accordance with Requirement 2.6.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.4" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.5", "identifier": "2.5", "text": "Evidence is generated and maintained to demonstrate the effectiveness of software security assurance processes.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2", "descriptions": [ "To demonstrate the effectiveness of software security assurance processes, evidence should be generated and maintained for each process to illustrate that it directly results in or contributes to the expected security outcomes—e.g., fewer vulnerabilities or greater resistance to attacks.\n\nEvidence needs to be frequently collected and kept up to date to ensure it accurately reflects the ongoing effectiveness of security assurance processes. Without a track record of performance for software security assurance processes, it becomes almost impossible to effectively perform root-cause analysis when such processes fail to produce the expected results.\n\nEvidence to support this objective might include security control and evidence generation inventories, vulnerability reports, penetration testing results, or any other records and evidence that clearly and consistently illustrates evidence is generated for each software security assurance process and that the evidence clearly illustrates the effectiveness of the processes." ] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.5.1", "identifier": "2.5.1", "text": "Evidence is generated and maintained for each security assurance process.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.5" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.5.2", "identifier": "2.5.2", "text": "The evidence generated for each process reasonably demonstrates the process is operating effectively and as intended.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.5" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.6", "identifier": "2.6", "text": "Failures or weaknesses in software security assurance processes are detected. Weak or ineffective security assurance processes are updated, augmented or replaced.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2", "descriptions": [ "Software vendors should monitor their security assurance processes to confirm that they remain appropriate (i.e., fit for purpose) and effective for their intended purpose and function. For example, the use of manual code reviews may be sufficient to detect all coding errors and vulnerabilities for software with a very limited code base. However, as the code base grows, the use of manual code reviews for the same purpose becomes increasingly impractical or insufficient, and automated testing tools (such as automated static-code scanners and dynamic software-analysis tools) should be utilized.\n\nOne method for detecting weak or ineffective security controls is to define a set of metrics or trends that can be used to measure the effectiveness of security assurance processes. For example, the results from a vendor’s security testing may provide greater insight into the effectiveness of security assurance processes. If security tests repeatedly find vulnerabilities within the software, it may be an indication that applicable security assurance processes are not being executed properly or working as intended. Another method to detect weak or ineffective security assurance processes would be to perform regular reviews of those processes and the evidence generated by those processes to verify they continue to be appropriate for their intended purpose.\n\nEvidence to support this requirement might include process- generated evidence, security test results, root-cause analysis, documented remediation actions, or any other evidence that clearly and consistently illustrates that the effectiveness of software security assurance processes is monitored, failures and weaknesses are detected, and security assurance processes are updated, augmented or replaced when no longer effective at satisfying their intended purpose." ] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.6.1", "identifier": "2.6.1", "text": "A mature process exists to detect and evaluate weak or ineffective security assurance processes.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.6" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.6.2", "identifier": "2.6.2", "text": "The criteria for determining a weak or ineffective security assurance process is defined and justified.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.6" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.6.3", "identifier": "2.6.3", "text": "Security assurance processes are updated, augmented or replaced when deemed weak or ineffective.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-2.6" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3", "identifier": "3", "title": "Threat Identification and Mitigation", "text": "The software vendor continuously identifies, assesses, and manages risk to its software and services." }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.1", "identifier": "3.1", "text": "Critical assets are identified and classified.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3", "descriptions": [ "Before the software vendor can determine how to effectively secure and defend its software against attacks, it must first develop a thorough understanding of the software’s critical assets that could be targeted by attackers.\n\nCritical assets include any sensitive data collected, stored, processed, or transmitted by the vendor’s software, as well as any sensitive functions and sensitive resources within or used by the software. Examples of analysis techniques that could be used to identify critical assets include, but are not limited to, Mission Impact Analysis (MIA), Functional Dependency Network Analysis (FDNA), and Mission Threat Analysis." ] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.1.1", "identifier": "3.1.1", "text": "A mature process exists to identify and classify critical assets.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.1.2", "identifier": "3.1.2", "text": "The criteria for identifying critical assets and determining the confidentiality, integrity, and resiliency requirements for each critical asset are defined.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.1.3", "identifier": "3.1.3", "text": "The process accounts for all types of critical assets—including sensitive data, sensitive resources, and sensitive functions—for the vendor’s software.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.1.4", "identifier": "3.1.4", "text": "The process results in an inventory of critical assets used by the vendor’s software.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2", "identifier": "3.2", "text": "Threats to the software and weaknesses within its design are continuously identified and assessed.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3", "descriptions": [ "Determining how to effectively secure and defend software against attacks requires a thorough understanding of the specific threats and vulnerabilities applicable to the vendor’s software. This typically involves understanding the motivations an attacker may have for attacking software; weaknesses in the software design that an attacker might attempt to exploit; the exploitability of identified weaknesses; and the impact of a successful attack.\n\nThis information helps the software vendor to identify the threats and design flaws that present the most significant and immediate risk, and to prioritize remediation activities necessary to address them.\n\nInformation regarding software threats can be obtained from a variety of sources, both external and internal. Examples of external sources include publications from organizations such as SANS, MITRE, and CERT that specialize in tracking common system vulnerabilities and attack techniques, or industry-specific sources that provide threat intelligence for specific sectors, such as FS-ISAC for the financial services industry and R-CISC for the retail industry. Other external sources of threat information and design weaknesses could include technology vendors, open-source user communities, industry publications, and academic papers. Internal sources could include reports from internal research and design teams, formal threat models, or actual activity data from internal security or operations teams.\n\nWhere open-source software components are used, the software vendor should consider any risks associated with the use of the open-source components and the extent to which the open-source software provider manages the security of those components. Additionally, the software vendor will need to confirm that support—including up-to-date security patches—is available (whether provided by an internal or external entity) for the open-source component. The use of open-source components should be supported by a clear policy about how those components are evaluated and implemented. A reliable support system should be in place to identify errors or problems and evaluate and address them in a timely manner.\n\nWhere vulnerabilities are identified in open-source components that are applicable to their software, software vendors should have processes in place to analyze those vulnerabilities and update the components to appropriate, non-vulnerable versions in a timely manner. When patches for open-source components are no longer available, those components should be replaced by actively supported ones. Vendors should identify and establish sources and processes for managing vulnerabilities in open-source components that are appropriate for their software design and release frequency." ] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2.1", "identifier": "3.2.1", "text": "A mature process exists to identify, assess, and monitor software threats and design weaknesses (i.e., flaws).", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2.2", "identifier": "3.2.2", "text": "The assessment accounts for all software inputs/outputs, process/data flows, trust boundaries and decision points, and how they may be exploited by an attacker.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2.3", "identifier": "3.2.3", "text": "The assessment accounts for the entire code base, including how the use of third-party, open-source, or shared components or libraries, APIs, services, and applications used for the delivery and operation of the software may be leveraged in an attack.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2.4", "identifier": "3.2.4", "text": "The assessment results in a recorded inventory of threats and design flaws.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2.5", "identifier": "3.2.5", "text": "Assessments are routinely performed to account for changes to existing or the emergence of new threats or design flaws.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2.6", "identifier": "3.2.6", "text": "An inventory of open-source components used in the vendor’s software is maintained.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2.7", "identifier": "3.2.7", "text": "A mature process exists to analyze and mitigate the use of open-source components with known vulnerabilities.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2.8", "identifier": "3.2.8", "text": "The software vendor monitors vulnerabilities in open-source components throughout their use or inclusion in the vendor’s software.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2.9", "identifier": "3.2.9", "text": "An appropriate patching strategy for open- source components is defined.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.2" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.3", "identifier": "3.3", "text": "Software security controls are implemented in the software to mitigate threats and design weaknesses.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3", "descriptions": [ "To ensure that its software is resistant to attacks, software vendors must implement software-specific controls or countermeasures in their software to mitigate the specific threats and design weaknesses. Examples of such controls include the use of multi-factor authentication mechanisms to prevent unauthorized individuals gaining access to critical assets, and logging mechanisms to detect if and when authentication mechanisms might have been circumvented. Other examples include the use of input validation routines or parameterized queries to protect software from SQL-injection attacks. Except where specific software security controls and countermeasures are defined within this standard, it is up to the vendor to determine the most appropriate software security controls to implement. The specific controls used will be dependent on the software threats identified in Requirement 3.2 as well as the software’s architecture, the software’s intended function, the data it handles, and the external resources it utilizes.\n\nEvidence to support this control objective may include software- specific requirements documentation, feature lists, security control inventories, change-management documentation, risk assessment reports, test results, or any other evidence or information that clearly and consistently illustrates that the software vendor implements and maintains security controls in software to address the risks to that software." ] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.3.1", "identifier": "3.3.1", "text": "A mature process exists for defining software- specific security requirements and implementing software security controls within the software to mitigate software threats and design flaws.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.3.2", "identifier": "3.3.2", "text": "Decisions on whether and how to mitigate a specific threat or design flaw are recorded, justified, and approved by appropriate personnel.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.3.3", "identifier": "3.3.3", "text": "Any remaining residual risk is recorded, justified, and approved by appropriate personnel.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.3" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.4", "identifier": "3.4", "text": "Failures or weaknesses in software security controls are detected. Weak or ineffective security controls are updated, augmented or replaced.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3", "descriptions": [ "Vendors should monitor and/or routinely test their software to confirm that implemented software security controls remain appropriate (i.e., fit for purpose) and effective for sufficiently mitigating evolving risks or design flaws. For example, a software-specific security requirement may call for cryptography to be used to protect software communications. While the use of SSL may have been sufficient upon the initial design and release of the software, SSL is no longer sufficient to adequately protect communications as new threats and attack methods have significantly reduced its effectiveness as a security control. Therefore, it is imperative that vendors have processes in place to continuously monitor implemented security controls to make sure that they remain appropriate and sufficient to mitigate evolving threats and design flaws throughout the entire lifetime of the software.\n\nEvidence to support this requirement might include software- specific documentation, features lists, software-specific security control inventories, change-management documentation, risk- assessment reports, penetration test results, output from active monitoring systems, bug bounty program data, or any other evidence or information that clearly and consistently illustrates that the effectiveness of software security controls is monitored and that software-specific software security controls are updated, augmented, or replaced when no longer effective at satisfying their intended purpose of resisting attacks." ] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.4.1", "identifier": "3.4.1", "text": "A mature process exists to identify weak or ineffective software security controls and to update, augment, or replace them.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.4" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.4.2", "identifier": "3.4.2", "text": "The criteria for determining a weak or ineffective security control is defined and justified.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.4" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.4.3", "identifier": "3.4.3", "text": "The process involves monitoring security control effectiveness throughout the software lifecycle.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.4" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.4.4", "identifier": "3.4.4", "text": "Weak or ineffective security controls are updated, augmented, or replaced in a timely manner upon detection.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.4" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.5.5", "identifier": "3.5.5", "text": "Decisions on whether and how to replace and augment weak or ineffective security controls are made in accordance with defined criteria and with Requirement 3.3.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-3.5" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4", "identifier": "4", "title": "Vulnerability Detection and Mitigation", "text": "The software vendor detects and mitigates vulnerabilities in software to ensure that its software remains resistant to attacks throughout its entire lifecycle." }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1", "identifier": "4.1", "text": "Existing and emerging software vulnerabilities are detected in a timely manner.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4", "descriptions": [ "Software should be monitored or routinely tested to confirm that vulnerabilities are identified and mitigated before software or code updates are released into production, and to address any vulnerabilities that may have been discovered since release.\n\nRoutine security testing should be performed prior to or as part of the code-commit process to detect coding errors or the use of insecure functions. It could also be performed during unit, integration, regression, or interoperability testing, or during separate security testing. Security testing should be performed consistently and throughout all stages of the software lifecycle, including during various pre-release phases of the software development process and after code release, to ensure the software is free from vulnerabilities upon launch and any subsequent updates, and remains free from vulnerabilities throughout its lifetime.\n\nSecurity testing should be performed by appropriately skilled vendor personnel or third parties. In addition, security testing personnel should be able to conduct tests in an objective manner and be authorized to escalate any identified vulnerabilities to appropriate management or development personnel so they can be properly addressed.\n\nEvidence to support this control objective could include software- specific requirements documentation, security test results, feature lists, change-management documentation, entries in the vendor’s workflow (bug tracking) database, or any other evidence or information that clearly and consistently shows that security testing is performed routinely to detect vulnerabilities in code prior to release as well as vulnerabilities discovered since code launch." ] }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1.1", "identifier": "4.1.1", "text": "A mature process exists for testing software for the existence and emergence of vulnerabilities (i.e., security testing).", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1.2", "identifier": "4.1.2", "text": "Tools or methods used for security testing are appropriate for detecting applicable vulnerabilities in the vendor’s software, and are suitable for the software architectures, and the software development languages and frameworks employed.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1.3", "identifier": "4.1.3", "text": "Security testing is performed throughout the entire software lifecycle, including after release.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1.4", "identifier": "4.1.4", "text": "Security testing accounts for the entire code base, including detecting vulnerabilities in any third-party, open-source, and shared components and libraries.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1.5", "identifier": "4.1.5", "text": "Security testing is performed by authorized and objective vendor personnel or third parties.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1.6", "identifier": "4.1.6", "text": "Security testing results in an inventory of identified vulnerabilities.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1.7", "identifier": "4.1.7", "text": "Security-testing details including the tools used, their configurations, and the specific tests performed are recorded and retained.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.1" }, { "bom-ref": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4.2", "identifier": "4.2", "text": "Newly discovered vulnerabilities are fixed in a timely manner. The reintroduction of similar or previously resolved vulnerabilities is prevented.", "parent": "pcissc-sslc-1.1-4", "descriptio