# NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 MA-3(1) — Inspect Tools - Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ma-3-1-inspect-tools - Section: [Compliance](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance) › [NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 Controls](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5) › MA — Maintenance - Last updated: 2026-06-05 - Publisher: iCompaas, Inc. (https://www.icompaas.com) **NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5**·Control `MA-3(1)`·high·Component: **Maintenance** ## What this control requires > Inspect Maintenance tools brought by personnel or downloaded from vendors for improper or unauthorized modifications. If any modifications or malicious code are detected, the incident is handled according to organizational policies and procedures for incident response. This control supports the Tool Inspection capability within the Maintenance family. > > — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Control MA-3(1) ### In plain English Inspect Maintenance tools brought by personnel or downloaded from vendors for improper or unauthorized modifications. In practice, this means you can prove you policy procedures-level controls on a defined cadence. ## Why it matters SP 800-53 is the catalogue every U.S. federal authorisation (FedRAMP, FISMA, CMMC) and most regulated industries point at. A missing control surfaces as a Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M) item that an Authorizing Official must approve before the Authority To Operate is granted or renewed. This control is rated **high**. Auditors expect a named owner, a remediation SLA, and a tooling artefact that evidences continuous operation. ## What an auditor looks for A 3PAO (FedRAMP) or Independent Assessor (NIST RMF) tests against NIST SP 800-53A assessment procedures. For each control they expect a documented implementation that addresses every assessment objective (Examine, Interview, Test) and an implementation summary in the System Security Plan. Within **Maintenance**, the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Control MA-3(1)) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles. ## How to implement #### Incident Response **Runbook.** Maintain a runbook keyed by incident type with named roles (IC, comms, scribe), an out-of-band comms channel, and a 72-hour timeline for external notification. **Tabletop.** Run a quarterly tabletop exercise (ransomware, insider, supply-chain) and feed gaps back into the runbook. #### Policy Management **Docs.** Keep each policy in version-controlled Markdown alongside the code that implements it; ship a signed PDF snapshot at each annual review and link the SHA into the SoA. ### Operational checklist - **Policy.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Security.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Maintenance.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Response.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Chain.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Scope:** procedures, management, inspection, personnel, maintenance, capability, tools, security policy. ## Evidence to collect - **Vendor Risk Management.** `vendor_risk_management` evidence - **Policy Document.** A signed and version-controlled policy / standard / procedure document. Third-party risk management evidence (assessments, contracts, due diligence) shows supplier oversight. Signed policy or standard documents the safeguard. Focus: Inspect Tools. ## Common pitfalls - Runbooks that name a role but no person, or list a paging channel that no longer exists. - Policies that no engineer has read; the version in Confluence drifts from the version that's actually being enforced. ## How it maps to other frameworks Computed from shared tags, control component and key-operation subjects — handy when you are reconciling controls across an audit. - [**ISO/IEC 27001:2022 A.5.19** — Information security in supplier relationships](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-27001-2022/a-5-19-information-security-in-supplier-relationships) - [**HIPAA (45 CFR Part 164) 164.310(a)(2)(iv)** — Facility Access Controls - Maintain Maintenance Records](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/hipaa/164-310-a-2-iv-facility-access-controls-maintain-maintenance-records) - [**NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 3 3.7.1** — Recategorized as NCO.](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-171-rev-3/3-7-1-recategorized-as-nco) - [**SOC 2 (2017 TSC) P6.5** — Third-Party Breach Notification Commitments](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria/p6-5-third-party-breach-notification-commitments) ## Related controls in NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 - [**Control MA-3(2)** — Inspect Media](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ma-3-2-inspect-media) - [**Control IR-6(3)** — Supply Chain Coordination](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ir-6-3-supply-chain-coordination) - [**Control MP-6(2)** — Equipment Testing](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/mp-6-2-equipment-testing) - [**Control SR-8** — Notification Agreements](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sr-8-notification-agreements) - [**Control SA-12(12)** — Inter-Organizational Agreements](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-12-12-inter-organizational-agreements) - [**Control SR-3** — Supply Chain Controls And Processes](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sr-3-supply-chain-controls-and-processes) ## References - [NIST Computer Security Resource Center — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/risk-management/sp800-53-controls) - Catalogue identifier: `Control MA-3(1)` Topics: governance riskvendor riskvendor managementincident responsesupply chain securitypolicy management ## Related compliance guidance - [NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5: a practical implementation guide for cloud teams](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5): Start with the full NIST SP 800-53 implementation guide — scope, roadmap, evidence and how the assessment runs. - [NIST SP 800-171 and CMMC: a practical guide to protecting CUI in the cloud](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-171-rev-3): If your obligation is protecting CUI in your own systems for a federal or defence contract, this derived subset — not the full catalogue — is the requirement. - [SOC 2 compliance: a practical implementation guide for cloud-native SaaS teams](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria): Most commercial SaaS already hold a SOC 2 Type 2, and FedRAMP 20x Class A is designed for providers that have one.