# NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-3(6) — Testing And Verification - Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-3-6-testing-and-verification - 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(6)`·high·Component: **System and Information Integrity** ## What this control requires > Test malicious code protection mechanisms at the organization-defined frequency by introducing known benign code into the system. Verify that the protection mechanisms detect the code and ensure proper incident reporting is triggered as expected. This control supports the Malicious Code Protection Systems capability within the System and Information Integrity family. > > — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Control SI-3(6) ### In plain English Test malicious code protection mechanisms at the organization-defined frequency by introducing known benign code into the system. In practice, this means you can prove you information information-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-3(6)) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles. ## How to implement #### Code Review Testing **Pipeline.** Require at least one human reviewer plus passing CI (lint, type, unit, security scan) before merge — protected branches enforce this. #### 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. #### 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. ### Operational checklist - **Information.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Security.** 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. - **Response.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Scope:** information, organization, system, application, protection, review, capability, verification. ## 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: Testing And Verification. ## Common pitfalls - CI security checks set to warn-only; the merge button is faster than the security feedback. - Runbooks that name a role but no person, or list a paging channel that no longer exists. ## 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 SI-4(16)** — Correlate Monitoring Information](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-4-16-correlate-monitoring-information) - [**Control SI-7(6)** — Cryptographic Protection](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-7-6-cryptographic-protection) - [**Control SI-3** — Malicious Code Protection](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-3-malicious-code-protection) - [**Control SI-4(4)** — Inbound And Outbound Communications Traffic](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-4-4-inbound-and-outbound-communications-traffic) - [**Control SC-26** — Decoys](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sc-26-decoys) - [**Control SI-16** — Memory Protection](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/si-16-memory-protection) ## 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(6)` Topics: application securitysecure developmentcode review testingdevsecopsincident response ## 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.