# NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SA-17(6) — Structure For Testing

- Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-17-6-structure-for-testing
- 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-17(6)`·high·Component: **System and Services Acquisition**

## What this control requires

> Require developers to structure security-relevant hardware, software, and firmware to facilitate thorough testing and evaluation. Align with SP 800-160-1 principles to support comprehensive assurance cases. This control supports the Testability-Driven Design Framework capability within the System and Services Acquisition family.
> 
> — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Control SA-17(6)

### In plain English

Require developers to structure security-relevant hardware, software, and firmware to facilitate thorough testing and evaluation. In practice, this means you can prove you security-relevant 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-17(6)) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles.

## How to implement

#### Endpoint Protection

**MDM.** Make MDM enrollment a hard gate for device access (Intune compliance + Conditional Access, or Jamf + Okta device trust). Unmanaged devices simply don't get a session token.

**EDR.** Deploy CrowdStrike / SentinelOne / Defender for Endpoint to every server and laptop; alert on any host that stops sending telemetry for >24h.

#### 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-Relevant.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Review.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Protection.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Hardware.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **System.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Scope:** system, protection, hardware, software, firmware, review, services, capability.

## Evidence to collect

-   **User Device Scan.** MDM compliance state per user device (Intune / Jamf / Workspace ONE).

Endpoint compliance telemetry (Intune, Jamf) proves managed coverage. Focus: Structure For Testing.

## Common pitfalls

-   Pilot MDM rollouts that quietly exclude executives or engineers; carving out the highest-risk users is the most common audit failure.

## 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 3.13.13** — Mobile Code](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-171-rev-3/3-13-13-mobile-code)

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

-   [**Control SA-17(5)** — Conceptually Simple Design](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-17-5-conceptually-simple-design)
-   [**Control SA-17(2)** — Security-Relevant Components](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-17-2-security-relevant-components)
-   [**Control SA-10(5)** — Mapping Integrity For Version Control](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-10-5-mapping-integrity-for-version-control)
-   [**Control CM-8(9)** — Assignment Of Components To Systems](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/cm-8-9-assignment-of-components-to-systems)
-   [**Control AC-11(1)** — Pattern-Hiding Displays](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ac-11-1-pattern-hiding-displays)
-   [**Control CM-8(2)** — Automated Maintenance](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/cm-8-2-automated-maintenance)

## 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-17(6)`

Topics: endpoint securityendpoint protectioncode review testing

## 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.