TDA-17.1: Static Code Analysis
Mechanisms exist to require the developers of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) to employ static code analysis tools to identify and remediate common flaws and document the results of the analysis.
Renumbered: Formerly TDA-09.2 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, TDA-17.1 was Alternate Sources for Continued Support. That control is now AST-39.1.
Control Question: Does the organization require the developers of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) to employ static code analysis tools to identify and remediate common flaws and document the results of the analysis?
General (22)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| CIS CSC 8.1 | 16.12 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 | 16.12 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | SDV-04 SET-06 |
| GovRAMP | SA-11(01) |
| GovRAMP Core | SA-11(01) |
| GovRAMP Moderate | SA-11(01) |
| GovRAMP High | SA-11(01) |
| IEC 62443-4-1 2018 | SI-1(c) |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 | TS-8.3 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SA-11(1) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | SA-11(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | SA-11(01) |
| NIST 800-218 | PO.4 PW.7 PW.7.2 |
| OWASP Top 10 2025 | A01:2025 A02:2025 A03:2025 A04:2025 A05:2025 A06:2025 A07:2025 A08:2025 A09:2025 A10:2025 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 6.2.4 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) | 6.2.4 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) | 6.2.4 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) | 6.2.4 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 6.2.4 |
| SPARTA 4.0 | CM0019 CM0043 |
| UL 2900-1 2017 | 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 |
| UL 2900-2-2 2016 | 18.1 19.1 |
US (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SA-11(1) SA-11(1)-IS.1 SA-11(1)-IS.2 |
| USA Federal DHS CISA SSDAF | 4 |
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | ARCHITECTURE-4h |
| USA Federal EO 14028 | 4e(iv) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | SA-11(01) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | SA-11(01) |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | SA-11(CE-1) |
EMEA (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | OPS-22.01AC COM-02.02B.6 PSS-02.02B.1 |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 16.2(b) |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 1-3-2-1 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 | 1-6-3-3 |
APAC (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-0402 ISM-2028 |
| APAC India RBI Digital Payments 2021 | 24.b |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 10.10 10.14 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 6.1.6 |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 3.2.9 |
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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). 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. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160). ▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments. ▪ Developers of TAAS are required to employ static code analysis tools to identify and remediate common flaws, documenting the results of the analysis before the application is cleared for production usage.
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 require the developers of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) to employ static code analysis tools to identify and remediate common flaws and document the results of the analysis.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
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
- TDA-17.1_A01 the developer of the system, system component or system service is required to employ static code analysis tools to identify common flaws.
- TDA-17.1_A02 the developer of the system, system component or system service is required to employ static code analysis tools to document the results of the analysis.
Evidence Requirements
- E-TDA-03 Application Security Testing (AST)
-
Documented evidence of application security testing (e.g., DAST, SAST, fuzzing, etc.).
Technology Design & Acquisition
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Free static analysis (e.g., GitHub CodeQL, SonarQube Community, Semgrep)
Small
- SAST in CI/CD (e.g., SonarQube, Semgrep, CodeQL)
Medium
- SAST integrated in CI/CD with defined severity thresholds (e.g., SonarQube, Semgrep, Checkmarx)
- Findings tracked to closure
Large
- Enterprise SAST platform (e.g., Checkmarx, Veracode, Snyk Code, GitHub Advanced Security)
- Policy gates on critical findings
- Developer remediation guidance
Enterprise
- Enterprise application security testing platform with SAST across all pipelines
- Centralized vulnerability management for code findings
- Metrics and SLA-driven remediation