# NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 MA-3 — Maintenance Tools - Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ma-3-maintenance-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`·high·Component: **Maintenance** ## What this control requires > Approve, control, and monitor the use of system Maintenance tools, and periodically review previously approved tools. This ensures that diagnostic and repair tools, which could be potential vectors for malicious code, are secure and aligned with organizational security policies. This control supports the Maintenance Tools capability within the Maintenance family. > > — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Control MA-3 ### In plain English Approve, control, and monitor the use of system Maintenance tools, and periodically review previously approved tools. In practice, this means you can prove you security system-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) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles. ## How to implement #### Secure Development **Pipeline.** Require code review, SAST (Semgrep / Snyk Code), SCA (Dependabot / Renovate), secret-scanning and IaC scanning in the merge pipeline. **Branch protection.** Protected branches enforce reviews, signed commits and passing CI before merge; document the protection rules as the control evidence. #### Code Review Testing **Pipeline.** Require at least one human reviewer plus passing CI (lint, type, unit, security scan) before merge — protected branches enforce this. #### Logging Monitoring **AWS.** Org-trail CloudTrail to a central log archive account, GuardDuty in every region, and Security Hub for cross-source correlation. **Azure.** Pipe every diagnostic setting into a central Log Analytics workspace; onboard Microsoft Sentinel for SIEM/SOAR. **GCP.** Aggregate audit logs in a dedicated logging project with sink to BigQuery; enable Security Command Center Premium and route findings to Chronicle SIEM. ### Operational checklist - **Security.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Review.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Maintenance.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Monitor.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **System.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Scope:** system, application, monitor, review, maintenance, capability, tools, malicious code. ## Evidence to collect - **Code Repo Scan.** Source-control evidence — branch protection, required reviewers, CI status, SCA / SAST reports. Source control pipelines (GitHub, GitLab) enforce SDLC guardrails. Focus: Maintenance Tools. ## Common pitfalls - CI security checks set to warn-only; the merge button is faster than the security feedback. - Per-account logging that nobody stitches together at the org level — incidents that cross accounts go undetected for days. ## 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. - [**NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 3 3.7.4** — Maintenance Tools](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-171-rev-3/3-7-4-maintenance-tools) - [**CIS Controls v8 16.12** — Implement Code-Level Security Checks](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/cis-controls-v8/16-12-implement-code-level-security-checks) - [**ISO/IEC 27001:2022 A.8.28** — Secure coding](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-27001-2022/a-8-28-secure-coding) ## Related controls in NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 - [**Control SI-4(4)** — Inbound And Outbound Communications Traffic](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-4-4-inbound-and-outbound-communications-traffic) - [**Control AT-2(4)** — Suspicious Communications And Anomalous System Behavior](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/at-2-4-suspicious-communications-and-anomalous-system-behavior) - [**Control SC-7(9)** — Restrict Threatening Outgoing Communications Traffic](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sc-7-9-restrict-threatening-outgoing-communications-traffic) - [**Control SA-11(9)** — Interactive Application Security Testing](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-11-9-interactive-application-security-testing) - [**Control SI-4(16)** — Correlate Monitoring Information](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-4-16-correlate-monitoring-information) - [**Control SA-11(1)** — Static Code Analysis](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-11-1-static-code-analysis) ## 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` Topics: application securitysecure developmentcode review testingdevsecopslogging monitoring ## 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.