SOC 2 (2017 TSC) CC6.8 — Malicious Code Protection

What this control requires

The entity implements controls to prevent or detect and act upon the introduction of unauthorized or malicious software to meet the entity's objectives.

In plain English

The entity implements controls to prevent or detect and act upon the introduction of unauthorized or malicious software to meet the entity's objectives. In practice, this means you can prove you access objectives-level controls on a defined cadence.

Why it matters

Every SOC 2 audit opinion is built control-by-control from the Trust Services Criteria. A missing or failing criterion produces an exception in the report, which buyers, partners and procurement teams read line-by-line during vendor reviews.

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 SOC 2 auditor (under AT-C §§ 105/205) tests both design and operating effectiveness over the audit window. For each criterion they expect a written control, a control owner, a population of events, and a sample tested against the population — including remediation tickets for exceptions.

Within Common Criteria (Security), the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Criterion CC6.8) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles.

How to implement

Physical Security

Inheritance. For cloud-only operations, inherit physical controls from the provider's SOC 2 / ISO 27001 report and document the inheritance in the SoA.

Operational checklist

• Access. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
• Physical. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
• Malicious. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
• Security. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
• Management. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
• Scope: objectives, protection, controls, code protection, management.

Evidence to collect

• Identity Scan. IAM / IdP exports — Entra ID, Okta, IAM Identity Center, Workspace directory — showing accounts, roles, MFA state and last sign-in.
• Infra Scan. Continuous infrastructure-posture telemetry — AWS Config, Azure Policy compliance, GCP Organisation Policy, Wiz / Prisma findings.

Identity analytics (Okta, SailPoint, Access Analyzer) demonstrates least-privilege. Focus: Malicious Code Protection (Original component: Logical and Physical Access Controls).

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 3.13.4 — Information in Shared System Resources
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 A.8.23 — Web filtering
• BSI C5:2020 PS-04 — Physical site access control
• NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 PE-3(1) — System Access
• CIS Controls v8 9.2 — Use DNS Filtering Services

Related controls in SOC 2 (2017 TSC)

• Criterion CC6.1 — Logical Access Controls
• Criterion CC6.6 — Boundary Protection
• Criterion CC6.5 — Asset Disposal
• Criterion CC6.4 — Physical Access Controls
• Criterion CC1.5 — Accountability for Internal Control Responsibilities
• Criterion CC6.2 — Access Provisioning

References

• AICPA / ASEC — SOC 2 (2017 TSC)
• Catalogue identifier: Criterion CC6.8

Topics: identity accessidentity managementaccess reviewprivileged accessphysical security