# NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SA-11(6) — Attack Surface Reviews

- Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-11-6-attack-surface-reviews
- 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(6)`·high·Component: **System and Services Acquisition**

## What this control requires

> Require developers to perform attack surface reviews to identify exposed areas vulnerable to exploitation. Analyze design and implementation changes, mitigate emerging attack vectors, and deprecate unsafe functions. This control supports the Attack Surface Analysis and Mitigation Protocol capability within the System and Services Acquisition family.
> 
> — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Control SA-11(6)

### In plain English

Require developers to perform attack surface reviews to identify exposed areas vulnerable to exploitation. 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(6)) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles.

## How to implement

#### 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.
-   **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.
-   **Identify.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Scope:** management, reviews, system, functions, analysis, services, capability, policy.

## Evidence to collect

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

Signed policy or standard documents the safeguard. Focus: Attack Surface Reviews.

## Common pitfalls

-   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.

-   [**HIPAA (45 CFR Part 164) 164.308(a)(5)(i)** — Security Awareness and Training](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/hipaa/164-308-a-5-i-security-awareness-and-training)
-   [**NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 3 3.4.4** — Impact Analyses](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-171-rev-3/3-4-4-impact-analyses)
-   [**SOC 2 (2017 TSC) PI1.3** — Processing Controls](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria/pi1-3-processing-controls)
-   [**BSI C5:2020 SP-01** — Documentation, communication and provision of policies and instructions](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/bsi-c5-2020/sp-01-documentation-communication-and-provision-of-policies-and-instructions)

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

-   [**Control SA-4(9)** — Functions, Ports, Protocols, And Services In Use](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-4-9-functions-ports-protocols-and-services-in-use)
-   [**Control SA-5(3)** — High-Level Design](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-5-3-high-level-design)
-   [**Control SA-8(4)** — Partially Ordered Dependencies](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-8-4-partially-ordered-dependencies)
-   [**Control SA-4(12)** — Data Ownership](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-4-12-data-ownership)
-   [**Control SA-5(4)** — Low-Level Design](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-5-4-low-level-design)
-   [**Control SA-8(1)** — Clear Abstractions](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-8-1-clear-abstractions)

## 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(6)`

Topics: governance riskpolicy 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.