# NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SA-15(4) — Threat Modeling And Vulnerability Analysis - Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-15-4-threat-modeling-and-vulnerability-analysis - 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-15(4)`·high·Component: **System and Services Acquisition** ## What this control requires > Conduct threat modeling and vulnerability analysis to identify and assess risks to system security. This control supports the Threat Modeling Report capability within the System and Services Acquisition family. > > — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Control SA-15(4) ### In plain English Conduct threat modeling and vulnerability analysis to identify and assess risks to system security. 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 **System and Services Acquisition**, the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Control SA-15(4)) 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. ### Operational checklist - **Security.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Review.** 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. - **Testing,.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Scope:** system, threat, analysis, review, services, capability, assess, vulnerability. ## 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: Threat Modeling And Vulnerability Analysis. ## Common pitfalls - CI security checks set to warn-only; the merge button is faster than the security feedback. ## 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 3.14.2** — Malicious Code Protection](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-171-rev-3/3-14-2-malicious-code-protection) ## Related controls in NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 - [**Control SA-12(8)** — Use Of All-Source Intelligence](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-12-8-use-of-all-source-intelligence) - [**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-14** — Criticality Analysis](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-14-criticality-analysis) - [**Control SA-11(2)** — Threat Modeling And Vulnerability Analyses](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-11-2-threat-modeling-and-vulnerability-analyses) - [**Control SA-12(13)** — Critical Information System Components](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-12-13-critical-information-system-components) - [**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 SA-15(4)` Topics: governance risksecure developmentcode review testingdevsecopsthreat 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.