NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-10(6) — Injection Prevention

What this control requires

Implement measures to prevent untrusted data injections, which can occur when malicious data is inserted into a system, leading to unintended or harmful actions. Techniques such as parameterized interfaces and output escaping can help mitigate this risk by separating data from code and using specific characters to inform the interpreter about the trustworthiness of the data. This control supports the Input Validation, Injection Prevention capability within the System and Information Integrity family.

In plain English

Implement measures to prevent untrusted data injections, which can occur when malicious data is inserted into a system, leading to unintended or harmful actions. In practice, this means you can prove you information actions-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 Information Integrity, the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Control SI-10(6)) 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

• Information. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
• Security. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
• Data. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
• Validation. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
• Review. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
• Scope: actions, information, system, application, review, capability, techniques, implement.

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: Injection Prevention.

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
• CIS Controls v8 16.12 — Implement Code-Level Security Checks

Related controls in NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5

• Control SI-16 — Memory Protection
• Control SI-7(6) — Cryptographic Protection
• Control SI-4(16) — Correlate Monitoring Information
• Control SI-3 — Malicious Code Protection
• Control SI-7(15) — Code Authentication
• Control SI-3(6) — Testing And Verification

References

• NIST Computer Security Resource Center — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5
• Catalogue identifier: Control SI-10(6)

Topics: application securitysecure developmentcode review testingdevsecops