Skip to main content

TDA-06.5: Software Release Integrity Verification

TDA 6 — Medium Protect

Mechanisms exist to publish integrity verification information for software releases.

Renumbered: Formerly TDA-20.1 in SCF 2025.4.

Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, TDA-06.5 was Software Design Review. That control is now TDA-05.4.

Control Question: Does the organization publish integrity verification information for software releases?

General (2)
Framework Mapping Values
MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 TS-1.15
NIST 800-218 PS.2 PS.2.1
US (2)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal DHS CISA SSDAF 3
USA Federal EO 14028 4e(vi)
APAC (3)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC India RBI Digital Payments 2021 59.0
APAC Japan ISMAP 14.2.1.6
APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 A4-2(f) A7-D2(e)(ix)

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

Level 3 — Well Defined

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TDA domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to publish integrity verification information for software releases.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 — Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Assessment Objectives

  1. TDA-06.5_A01 integrity verification information is published for software releases.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Publish checksums/hashes for any software releases

Small

  • Published SHA-256 hashes for releases
  • Code signing for distributed software

Medium

  • Code signing certificates for releases
  • Published hashes and signatures
  • Signed release notes

Large

  • Code signing with protected keys (HSM/KMS)
  • Published signatures and SBOMs
  • Signing integrated into release pipeline

Enterprise

  • Enterprise code signing program with HSM-protected keys and signing policy
  • Published integrity verification (signatures, hashes, SLSA provenance)
  • Transparency log / Sigstore where applicable

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.