TDA-17.5: Manual Code Review
Mechanisms exist to require the developers of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) to employ a manual code review process to identify and remediate unique flaws that require knowledge of the application's requirements and design.
Renumbered: Formerly TDA-09.7 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization require the developers of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) to employ a manual code review process to identify and remediate unique flaws that require knowledge of the application's requirements and design?
General (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SA-11(4) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | SA-11(04) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | SA-11(04) |
US (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | SA-11(CE-4) |
EMEA (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | PSS-02.02B.3 |
APAC (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC India RBI Digital Payments 2021 | 24.b |
| APAC India RBI PPI 2025 | 18.3.a |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 10.10 |
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 require the developers of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) to employ a manual code review process to identify and remediate unique flaws that require knowledge of the application's requirements and design.
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
- TDA-17.5_A01 specific code requiring manual code review is defined.
- TDA-17.5_A02 processes, procedures, and/or techniques used for manual code reviews are defined.
- TDA-17.5_A03 the developer of the system, system component, or system service is required to perform a manual code review of organization-defined specific code using organization-defined processes, procedures, and/or techniques.
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
- Peer code review before merge (pull requests)
Small
- Mandatory pull request review with security checklist
Medium
- Manual security code review for high-risk changes in addition to peer review
- Reviewer security training
Large
- Security champion or AppSec review of critical code paths
- Review requirements defined by risk
- Review evidence retained
Enterprise
- Enterprise manual code review program (security champions, AppSec review of critical components)
- Review coverage metrics
- Integration with SAST triage