# NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SA-11(2) — Threat Modeling And Vulnerability Analyses

- Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-11-2-threat-modeling-and-vulnerability-analyses
- 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) › SA — System and Services Acquisition
- Last updated: 2026-06-05
- Publisher: iCompaas, Inc. (https://www.icompaas.com)

**NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5**·Control `SA-11(2)`·high·Component: **System and Services Acquisition**

## What this control requires

> Require developers to perform threat modeling and vulnerability analyses during development and testing. Use organization-defined context, tools, rigor, and acceptance criteria to identify and mitigate risks introduced by design or implementation changes. This control supports the Contextual Threat Modeling and Risk Analysis Protocol capability within the System and Services Acquisition family.
> 
> — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Control SA-11(2)

### In plain English

Require developers to perform threat modeling and vulnerability analyses during development and testing. In practice, this means you can prove you policy management-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 **System and Services Acquisition**, the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Control SA-11(2)) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles.

## How to implement

#### Code Review Testing

**Pipeline.** Require at least one human reviewer plus passing CI (lint, type, unit, security scan) before merge — protected branches enforce this.

#### 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.

#### 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.

### Operational checklist

-   **Policy.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Review.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Changes.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **System.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Control.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Scope:** management, organization, system, mitigate risks, threat, analysis, analyses, review.

## Evidence to collect

-   **Policy Document.** A signed and version-controlled policy / standard / procedure document.

Signed policy or standard documents the safeguard. Focus: Threat Modeling And Vulnerability Analyses.

## Common pitfalls

-   Policies that no engineer has read; the version in Confluence drifts from the version that's actually being enforced.
-   CI security checks set to warn-only; the merge button is faster than the security feedback.

## Related controls in NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5

-   [**Control SA-15(4)** — Threat Modeling And Vulnerability Analysis](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-15-4-threat-modeling-and-vulnerability-analysis)
-   [**Control SA-15(8)** — Reuse Of Threat And Vulnerability Information](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-15-8-reuse-of-threat-and-vulnerability-information)
-   [**Control SA-15(7)** — Automated Vulnerability Analysis](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-15-7-automated-vulnerability-analysis)
-   [**Control SA-8(31)** — Secure System Modification](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-8-31-secure-system-modification)
-   [**Control SA-8** — Security And Privacy Engineering Principles](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-8-security-and-privacy-engineering-principles)
-   [**Control SA-17(9)** — Design Diversity](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-17-9-design-diversity)

## 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 SA-11(2)`

Topics: governance riskcode review testingpolicy managementsecure developmentthreat intelligence

## 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.