# NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-3(10) — Malicious Code Analysis

- Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-3-10-malicious-code-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) › SI — System and Information Integrity
- Last updated: 2026-06-05
- Publisher: iCompaas, Inc. (https://www.icompaas.com)

**NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5**·Control `SI-3(10)`·critical·Component: **System and Information Integrity**

## What this control requires

> Employ tools and techniques to analyze the characteristics and behavior of malicious code. Incorporate the analysis results into the organization's incident response and flaw remediation processes to improve future threat response. This control supports the Malware Analysis Tools capability within the System and Information Integrity family.
> 
> — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Control SI-3(10)

### In plain English

Employ tools and techniques to analyze the characteristics and behavior of malicious code. 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 **critical** in the source catalogue. Treat gaps here as production incidents in the risk register, not housekeeping.

## 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-3(10)) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles.

## How to implement

#### Incident Response

**Runbook.** Maintain a runbook keyed by incident type with named roles (IC, comms, scribe), an out-of-band comms channel, and a 72-hour timeline for external notification.

**Tabletop.** Run a quarterly tabletop exercise (ransomware, insider, supply-chain) and feed gaps back into the runbook.

#### 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.
-   **Information.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Response.** 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, information, organization, system, threat, analysis, capability, tools.

## Evidence to collect

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

Signed policy or standard documents the safeguard. Focus: Malicious Code Analysis.

## Common pitfalls

-   Runbooks that name a role but no person, or list a paging channel that no longer exists.
-   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.

-   [**ISO/IEC 27001:2022 A.5.7** — Threat intelligence](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-27001-2022/a-5-7-threat-intelligence)

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

-   [**Control SI-7(5)** — Automated Response To Integrity Violations](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-7-5-automated-response-to-integrity-violations)
-   [**Control SI-10(3)** — Predictable Behavior](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-10-3-predictable-behavior)
-   [**Control SI-2(3)** — Time To Remediate Flaws And Benchmarks For Corrective Actions](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-2-3-time-to-remediate-flaws-and-benchmarks-for-corrective-actions)
-   [**Control SI-4(1)** — System-Wide Intrusion Detection System](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-4-1-system-wide-intrusion-detection-system)
-   [**Control SI-2(4)** — Automated Patch Management Tools](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-2-4-automated-patch-management-tools)
-   [**Control SI-7(12)** — Integrity Verification](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-7-12-integrity-verification)

## 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 SI-3(10)`

Topics: governance riskincident responsepolicy managementthreat 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.