Vulnerability Scanning

Vulnerability scanning systematically identifies known security weaknesses in commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) and open-source software (OSS) components, including vulnerable dependencies and outdated software versions, across spacecraft and ground system environments. Custom-developed code requires separate analysis approaches, such as static and dynamic code analysis, that fall outside the scope of this countermeasure; however, COTS, OSS, and third-party dependencies incorporated into custom-developed software remain within the scope of vulnerability scanning and SCA. Scanning programs should incorporate software composition analysis (SCA) to detect vulnerabilities introduced through third-party libraries and dependency chains, which represent a significant and frequently underestimated attack surface in modern space systems. Scanning tools and processes should conform to recognized interoperability standards that support enumeration of platforms, software flaws, and configuration weaknesses; standardized formatting of checklists and test procedures; and consistent measurement of vulnerability impact. Adherence to these standards enables automation of key vulnerability management workflow steps, facilitates tool interoperability across the mission ecosystem, and produces outputs that are comparable across programs and organizations. Vulnerability scanning shall be performed against the approved as-built or deployed software baseline using methods that do not jeopardize mission operations. Active scanning of live spacecraft, safety-critical ground systems, or operational technology should occur only after the scanning method has been authorized and evaluated for operational impact. Where live scanning presents unacceptable risk, scanning should be performed against representative software images, firmware packages, or test environments that match the approved operational baseline.

Sources

https://attack.mitre.org/mitigations/M1016/

ID: CM0011

Tier: I

Ground CM

Created: 2022/10/19

Last Modified: 2026/08/06

Pre-Operations Government

Acquisition requirements should mandate vulnerability scanning as a recurring development lifecycle activity rather than a one-time pre-delivery event, with scanning applied to all COTS and OSS components integrated into spacecraft and ground systems throughout development and integration. Contract language should specify that scanning tools and outputs conform to recognized interoperability standards for platform enumeration, vulnerability formatting, and impact scoring, ensuring that government technical authorities can interpret and act on results without tool-specific translation. Requirements should address SCA as a distinct capability requirement, explicitly covering dependency and third-party library analysis, and should require that scan results be submitted to the government as controlled deliverables subject to the program's sensitive information handling requirements. Evaluation criteria should assess offerors' scanning toolchains, their processes for triaging and remediating findings, and their demonstrated ability to produce standards-conformant outputs. Verification should confirm that scanning is executed against the approved as-built software and firmware baseline, or an equivalent representative configuration, and that findings are tracked to remediation, mitigation, or documented risk acceptance prior to system acceptance.

Pre-Operations Developer/Supplier

Vulnerability scanning should be integrated into the software build pipeline as an automated, recurring activity so that newly introduced COTS or OSS components are scanned at the point of integration rather than as a downstream quality gate. SCA tooling should be selected for its ability to resolve transitive dependencies, not only direct dependencies, as vulnerabilities embedded in indirect dependency chains are a common and often overlooked source of exploitable weaknesses. Scanning tools should produce outputs in formats conformant with recognized vulnerability enumeration and scoring standards, enabling consistent prioritization of findings based on impact severity and exploitability. Scan results should feed directly into the vulnerability management workflow, with findings triaged against the mission's deployed software inventory and remediation priorities set based on the criticality of the affected component and the availability of a patch or mitigating control. The scanning configuration, including tool versions, rule sets, and scan scope, should be version-controlled and treated as part of the system's security baseline to ensure reproducibility and auditability of results across scan cycles.

Sustainment & Maintenance Government

Operational vulnerability scanning should be performed on a mission-defined schedule and following relevant software, firmware, dependency, or configuration changes. Scanning should cover the COTS and OSS components represented in the approved operational baseline and should provide current results to support vulnerability prioritization and remediation decisions. Newly published vulnerability disclosures that affect components in the mission inventory should trigger targeted out-of-cycle scans rather than waiting for the next scheduled scan window, particularly for critical or actively exploited vulnerabilities. Scan configurations should be updated regularly to incorporate new vulnerability signatures and detection rules, as outdated scanning configurations will fail to detect vulnerabilities disclosed after the last rule update. Findings management processes should track each identified vulnerability from initial detection through remediation or accepted risk disposition, with records maintained in a manner consistent with the program's sensitive information handling requirements. Scanning tool outputs should be periodically cross-checked against authoritative vendor advisories, public vulnerability sources, or an independent analysis method to identify potential coverage gaps or inaccurate findings. No individual scanning tool or vulnerability source should be assumed to provide complete coverage.

Sustainment & Maintenance Developer/Supplier

Techniques Addressed by Countermeasure

ID		Name	Description
IA-0001		Compromise Supply Chain	Adversaries achieve first execution before the spacecraft ever flies by inserting malicious code, data, or configuration during manufacturing, integration, or delivery. Targets include software sources and dependencies, build systems and compilers, firmware/bitstreams for MCUs and FPGAs, configuration tables, test vectors, and off-the-shelf avionics. Inserted artifacts are designed to appear legitimate, propagate through normal processes, and activate under routine procedures or specific modes (e.g., safing, maintenance). Common insertion points align with where trust is assumed, vendor updates, mirrors and registries, CI/CD runners, programming stations, and “golden image” repositories. The result is pre-positioned access that blends with baseline behavior, often with delayed or conditional triggers and strong deniability.
	.01	Software Dependencies & Development Tools	This technique targets what developers import and the tools that transform source into flight binaries. Methods include dependency confusion and typosquatting, poisoned container/base images, malicious IDE plugins, and compromised compilers, linkers, or build runners that subtly alter output. Because flight and ground stacks frequently reuse open-source RTOS components, crypto libraries, protocol parsers, and build scripts, an upstream change can deterministically reproduce a backdoor downstream. Attackers also seed private mirrors or caches so “trust-on-first-use” locks in tainted packages, or abuse CI secrets and environment variables to pivot further. Effects range from inserting covert handlers into command parsers, to weakening integrity checks in update paths, to embedding telemetry beacons that exfiltrate build metadata helpful for later stages.
	.02	Software Supply Chain	Here the manipulation targets software delivered to flight or ground systems: altering source before build, swapping signed binaries at distribution edges, subverting update metadata, or using stolen signing keys to issue malicious patches. Space-specific vectors include mission control applications, schedulers, gateway services, flight tables and configuration packages, and firmware loads during I&T or LEOP. Adversaries craft payloads that pass superficial validation, trigger under particular operating modes, or reintroduce known weaknesses through version rollback. “Data payloads” such as malformed tables, ephemerides, or calibration products can double as exploits when parsers are permissive. The objective is to ride the normal promotion pipeline so the implant arrives pre-trusted and executes as part of routine operations.
IA-0002		Compromise Software Defined Radio	Adversaries target SDR-based transceivers and payload radios because reconfigurable waveforms, FPGA bitstreams, and software flowgraphs create programmable footholds. Manipulation can occur in the radio’s development pipeline (toolchains, out-of-tree modules), at integration (loading of bitstreams, DSP coefficients, calibration tables), or in service via update channels that deliver new waveforms or patches. On-orbit SDRs often expose control planes (command sets for mode/load/select), data planes (baseband I/Q), and management/telemetry paths, any of which can embed covert behavior, alternate demod paths, or hidden subcarriers. A compromised SDR can establish clandestine command-and-control by activating non-public waveforms, piggybacking on idle fields, or toggling to time/ephemeris-triggered profiles that blend with nominal operations. On the ground, compromised SDR modems can be used to fabricate mission-compatible emissions or to decode protected downlinks for reconnaissance. Attackers leverage the SDR’s malleability so that malicious signaling, once seeded, presents as a legitimate but rarely exercised configuration.
IA-0007		Compromise Ground System	Compromising the ground segment gives an adversary the most direct path to first execution against a spacecraft. Ground systems encompass operator workstations and mission control mission control software, scheduling/orchestration services, front-end processors and modems, antenna control, key-loading tools and HSMs, data gateways (SLE/CSP), identity providers, and cloud-hosted mission services. Once inside, a threat actor can prepare on-orbit updates, craft and queue valid telecommands, replay captured traffic within acceptance windows, or manipulate authentication material and counters to pass checks. The same foothold enables deep reconnaissance: enumerating mission networks and enclaves, discovering which satellites are operated from a site, mapping logical topology between MOC and stations, identifying in-band “birds” reachable from a given aperture, and learning pass plans, dictionaries, and automation hooks. From there, initial access to the spacecraft is a matter of timing and presentation, injecting commands, procedures, or update packages that align with expected operations so the first execution event appears indistinguishable from normal activity.
	.01	Compromise On-Orbit Update	Adversaries may target the pipeline that produces and transmits updates to an on-orbit vehicle. Manipulation points include source repositories and configuration tables, build and packaging steps that generate images or differential patches, staging areas on ground servers, update metadata (versions, counters, manifests), and the transmission process itself. Spacecraft updates span flight software patches, FPGA bitstreams, bootloader or device firmware loads, and operational data products such as command tables, ephemerides, and calibration files, each with distinct formats, framing, and acceptance rules. An attacker positioned in the ground system can substitute or modify an artifact, alter its timing and timetags to match pass windows, and queue it through the same procedures operators use for nominal maintenance. Activation can be immediate or deferred: implants may lie dormant until a specific mode, safing entry, or table index is referenced.
IA-0011		Auxiliary Device Compromise	Adversaries abuse peripherals and removable media that the spacecraft (or its support equipment) ingests during development, I&T, or on-orbit operations. Small satellites and hosted payloads frequently expose standard interfaces, USB, UART, Ethernet, SpaceWire, CAN, or mount removable storage for loading ephemerides, tables, configuration bundles, or firmware. A tainted device can masquerade as a trusted class (mass-storage, CDC/HID) or present crafted files that trigger auto-ingest workflows, file watchers, or maintenance utilities. Malware may be staged by modifying the peripheral’s firmware, seeding the images written by lab formatting tools, or swapping media during handling. Once connected, the device can deliver binaries, scripts, or malformed data products that execute under existing procedures. Because these interactions often occur during hurried timelines (checkouts, rehearsals, contingency maintenance), the initial execution blends with legitimate peripheral use while traversing a path already privileged to reach flight software or controllers.
EX-0009		Exploit Code Flaws	The adversary executes actions on-board by abusing defects in software that runs on the vehicle, ranging from application logic in flight software to libraries, drivers, and supporting services. Outcomes range from arbitrary code execution and privilege escalation to silent logic manipulation (e.g., bypassing interlocks, suppressing alarms) that appears operationally plausible. The hallmark of this technique is that the attacker co-opts existing code paths, often rarely used ones, to run unintended behavior under nominal interfaces. These attacks may be extremely targeted and tailored to specific coding errors introduced as a result of poor coding practices or they may target known issues in the commercial software components.
	.01	Flight Software	Flight software presents rich attack surface where mission-specific parsing and autonomy live. Vulnerable components include command and telemetry handlers, table loaders, file transfer services, mode management and safing logic, payload control applications, and gateway processes that bridge payload and bus protocols. Typical flaws are unchecked lengths and indices in command fields, arithmetic overflows in rate/size calculations, insufficient validation of table contents, format-string misuse in logging, incomplete state cleanup across rapid mode changes, and race conditions in concurrent message processing. Some FSW suites expose operator-facing APIs or scripting/procedure engines used for automation; malformed invocations can coerce unexpected behaviors or enable arbitrary expressions. Because many subsystems act on “last write wins,” logic errors can yield durable configuration changes without obvious anomalies in protocol syntax. Successful exploitation lets an adversary execute code, alter persistent parameters, or chain effects across partitions that would otherwise be segmented by design.
	.02	Operating System	At the OS layer, the attacker targets primitives that schedule work and mediate hardware. Modern spacecraft, particularly small satellites, increasingly rely on Linux-based operating systems (e.g., Yocto-derived distributions) rather than traditional RTOSes, significantly expanding the applicable attack surface to include techniques documented in MITRE ATT&CK for Linux - <a href='https://attack.mitre.org/matrices/enterprise/linux/' class='internal-link' target='_blank'>https://attack.mitre.org/matrices/enterprise/linux/</a>. Maintenance builds may expose shells or management consoles; misconfigurations around these interfaces can provide paths to command interpreters or privileged syscalls. Linux-based flight systems inherit standard Unix/Linux vulnerabilities including kernel exploits, container escapes, privilege escalation via misconfigured sudo/capabilities, and exploitation of systemd or other init systems. Exploitation yields kernel-mode execution, arbitrary memory read/write, or control of scheduling and address spaces, letting the actor tamper with FSW processes, intercept command paths, or manipulate storage and bus drivers beneath application checks. Common Linux-specific vectors include exploiting unpatched kernel vulnerabilities, abusing misconfigurations in containerized environments, leveraging POSIX API weaknesses in flight applications, and targeting shared libraries or dynamic linkers to inject malicious code into flight processes. The technique leverages generic OS weaknesses adapted to the spacecraft's particular build, turning low-level control into mission-facing effects that appear to originate from legitimate processes. Because spacecraft Linux builds are often minimized, long-lived (limited patching), and may retain debug interfaces or permissive file permissions from ground testing, they present a unique risk profile combining embedded-system constraints with commodity OS attack techniques. Flight images frequently retain extraneous binaries and utilities (e.g., compilers, debuggers, network tools, package managers) intended for ground testing or development that are not removed before launch, providing adversaries with ready-made 'living off the land' capabilities for reconnaissance, lateral movement, and privilege escalation without needing to upload custom tooling.
	.03	Known Vulnerability (COTS/FOSS)	Using knowledge of the software composition on-board, the adversary maps components and versions to publicly or privately known defects and then crafts inputs to trigger them. Typical targets include standard libraries (libc, STL), cryptographic and compression libraries, protocol stacks (CCSDS implementations, IP over space links, SpaceWire bridges), filesystems and parsers (FITS/CCSDS packetization, custom table formats), and vendor SDKs for radios, sensors, or payloads. Triggers arrive as well-formed but malicious packets, frames, or files whose edge-case fields exercise version-specific bugs, overflowing a parser, bypassing an authentication check, or causing a kernel/driver fault that reboots into a more permissive mode. Because these flaws are documented somewhere, exploitation emphasizes matching the exact build and build-time options used on the mission.
EX-0010		Malicious Code	The adversary achieves on-board effects by introducing executable logic that runs on the vehicle, either native binaries and scripts, injected shellcode, or “data payloads” that an interpreter treats as code (e.g., procedure languages, table-driven automations). Delivery commonly piggybacks on legitimate pathways: software/firmware updates, file transfer services, table loaders, maintenance consoles, or command sequences that write to executable regions. Once staged, activation can be explicit (a specific command, mode change, or file open), environmental (time/geometry triggers), or accidental, where operator actions or routine autonomy invoke the implanted logic. Malicious code can target any layer it can reach: altering flight software behavior, manipulating payload controllers, patching boot or device firmware, or installing hooks in drivers and gateways that bridge bus and payload traffic. Effects range from subtle logic changes (quiet data tampering, command filtering) to overt actions (forced mode transitions, resource starvation), and may include secondary capabilities like covert communications, key material harvesting, or persistence across resets by rewriting images or configuration entries.
	.01	Ransomware	Ransomware on a spacecraft encrypts data or critical configuration so that nominal operations can no longer proceed without the attacker’s cooperation. Targets include mass-memory file stores (engineering telemetry, payload data), configuration and command tables, event logs, on-board ephemerides, and even intermediate buffers used by downlink pipelines. Some variants interfere with key services instead of bulk data, e.g., encrypting a command dictionary or table index so valid inputs are rejected, or wrapping the payload data path in an attacker-chosen cipher so downlinked products appear as noise. By denying access to on-board content or control artifacts at scale, attackers convert execution into bargaining power or irreversible mission degradation.
	.02	Wiper Malware	Wipers deliberately destroy or irreversibly corrupt data and, in some cases, executable images to impair or end mission operations. Destructive routines may overwrite with patterns or pseudorandom data, repeatedly reformat volumes, trigger wear mechanisms on non-volatile memory, or manipulate low-level translation layers so recovery tools see a blank or inconsistent device. Activation can be immediate or staged, sleeping until a specific time, pass, or maintenance action, and may be paired with anti-recovery steps such as erasing checksums, undo logs, or golden images. Because wipers operate at storage and image layers that underpin many subsystems, collateral effects can cascade: autonomy enters safing without viable recovery paths, downlinks carry only noise, and subsequent updates cannot be authenticated or applied. The defining feature is irreversible loss of data or executables as the primary objective, rather than concealment or monetization.
	.03	Rootkit	A rootkit hides the presence and activity of other malicious components by interposing on the mechanisms that report system state. On spacecraft this can occur within flight software processes, at OS kernel level, inside separation kernels/hypervisors, or down in system firmware where drivers and initialization routines run. Techniques include API and syscall hooking, patching message queues and inter-process communication paths, altering task lists and scheduler views, filtering telemetry packets and event logs, and rewriting sensor or health values before they are recorded or downlinked. Rootkits may also hook command handlers and gateways so certain opcodes, timetags, or sources are silently accepted or ignored while external observers see normal acknowledgments. Because many missions rely on deterministic procedures and limited observability, even small alterations to reporting can make malicious actions appear as plausible mode transitions or benign anomalies. Persistence often pairs with the concealment layer, with the rootkit reinjecting companions after resets or rebuilds by monitoring for specific files, tables, or image loads and modifying them on the fly.
	.04	Bootkit	A bootkit positions itself in the pre-OS boot chain so that it executes before normal integrity checks and can shape what the system subsequently trusts. After seizing early control, the bootkit can redirect image selection, patch kernels or flight binaries in memory, adjust device trees and driver tables, or install hooks that persist across warm resets. Some variants maintain shadow copies of legitimate images and present them to basic verification routines while steering actual execution to a modified payload; others manipulate fallback logic so recovery modes load attacker-controlled code. Because the boot path initializes memory maps, buses, and authentication material, a bootkit can also influence key/counter setup and gateway configurations, creating conditions favorable to later tactics. The central characteristic is precedence: by running first, the implant defines the reality higher layers observe, ensuring that every subsequent component launches under conditions curated by the attacker.
	.05	On-Board Process Injection	Adversaries may inject malicious code into trusted onboard software processes in order to execute arbitrary functionality within the context of legitimate spacecraft software. Targeted processes may include flight software tasks, operating system services, telemetry handlers, middleware, communication daemons, scheduler services, device drivers, or other mission-critical runtime components. Process injection enables malicious code to inherit the permissions, memory access, execution context, and trust relationships associated with the compromised process. This may allow adversaries to manipulate telemetry, alter spacecraft operational behavior, suppress reporting, interfere with fault management, inject unauthorized commands, or evade detection without interrupting nominal spacecraft operations. Unlike standalone malicious binaries or scripts, injected code executes within legitimate onboard software contexts, causing malicious activity to appear operationally valid and making detection and forensic analysis significantly more difficult.
PER-0002		Backdoor	A backdoor is a covert access path that bypasses normal authentication, authorization, or operational checks so the attacker can reenter the system on demand. Backdoors may be preexisting (undocumented service modes, maintenance accounts, debug features) or introduced by the adversary during development, integration, or on-orbit updates. Triggers range from “magic” opcodes and timetags to specific geometry/time conditions, counters, or data patterns embedded in routine traffic. The access they provide varies from expanded command sets and relaxed rate/size limits to alternate communications profiles and hidden file/parameter interfaces. Well-crafted backdoors blend with nominal behavior, appearing as ordinary operations while quietly accepting instructions that other paths would reject, thereby sustaining the attacker’s foothold across passes, resets, and operator handovers.
	.02	Software Backdoor	Software backdoors are code paths intentionally crafted or later inserted to provide privileged functionality on cue. In flight contexts, they appear as hidden command handlers, alternate authentication checks, special user/role constructs, or procedure/script hooks that accept nonpublic inputs. They can be embedded in flight applications, separation kernels or drivers, gateway processors that translate bus/payload traffic, or update/loader utilities that handle tables and images. SDR configurations offer another avenue: non-public waveforms, subcarriers, or framing profiles that, when selected, expose a private command channel. Activation is often conditional, specific timetags, geometry, message sequences, or file names, to keep the feature dormant during routine testing and operations. Once present, the backdoor provides a repeatable way to execute commands or modify state without traversing the standard control surfaces, sustaining the adversary’s access over time.
DE-0007		Evasion via Rootkit	A rootkit hides malicious activity by interposing on reporting paths after the system has booted. In flight contexts this includes patching flight software APIs, kernel syscalls, message queues, and telemetry publishers so task lists, counters, health channels, and event severities are falsified before downlink. Command handlers can be hooked to suppress evidence of certain opcodes or sources; recorder catalogs and file listings can be rewritten on the fly; and housekeeping can be biased to show nominal temperatures, currents, or voltages while actions proceed. The defining feature is runtime concealment: the observability surfaces operators rely on are altered to present a curated, benign narrative.
DE-0008		Evasion via Bootkit	A bootkit hides activity by running first and shaping what higher layers will later observe. Positioned in boot ROM handoff or early loaders, it can select or patch images in memory, alter device trees and driver tables, seed forged counters and timestamps, and preconfigure telemetry/crypto modes so subsequent components launch into a reality curated by the attacker. Because integrity and logging mechanisms are initialized afterward, the resulting view of processes, files, and histories reflects the bootkit’s choices, allowing long-term evasion that persists across resets and mode transitions.
EXF-0006		Modify Communications Configuration	The adversary alters radio/optical link configuration so the spacecraft emits mission data over paths the program does not monitor or control. Levers include retuning carriers, adding sidebands or subcarriers, changing modulation/coding profiles, remapping virtual channels/APIDs, editing beacon content, or redirecting routing tables in regenerative payloads. Data can be embedded steganographically (idle fields, padding, frame counters, pilot tones) or carried on a covert auxiliary downlink/crosslink pointed at attacker-owned apertures. Because these emissions conform to plausible waveforms and scheduler behavior, they appear as ordinary link activity while quietly conveying payload products, housekeeping, or file fragments to non-mission receivers.
	.01	Software Defined Radio	Programmable SDRs let an attacker introduce new waveforms or piggyback payloads into existing ones. By modifying DSP chains (filters, mixers, FEC, framing), the actor can: add a low-rate subcarrier under the main modulation, alter preamble/pilot sequences to encode bits, vary puncturing/interleaver patterns as a covert channel, or schedule brief “maintenance” bursts that actually carry exfiltrated data. Changes may be packaged as legitimate updates or configuration profiles so the SDR transmits toward attacker-visible geometry using standard equipment, while mission tooling interprets the emission as routine.
	.02	Transponder	On bent-pipe or regenerative transponders, configuration controls what is translated, amplified, and routed. An adversary can remap input–output paths, shift translation frequencies, adjust polarization or gain to favor non-mission receivers, or enable auxiliary ports so selected virtual channels or recorder playbacks are forwarded outside the planned ground segment. In regenerative systems, edited routing tables or QoS rules can mirror traffic to an attacker-controlled endpoint. The result is a sanctioned-looking carrier that quietly delivers mission data to unauthorized listeners.

Space Threats Addressed by Countermeasure

ID	Description
SV-MA-3	Attacks on critical software subsystems Attitude Determination and Control (AD&C) subsystem determines and controls the orientation of the satellite. Any cyberattack that could disrupt some portion of the control loop - sensor data, computation of control commands, and receipt of the commands would impact operations Telemetry, Tracking and Commanding (TT&C) subsystem provides interface between satellite and ground system. Computations occur within the RF portion of the TT&C subsystem, presenting cyberattack vector Command and Data Handling (C&DH) subsystem is the brains of the satellite. It interfaces with other subsystems, the payload, and the ground. It receives, validate, decodes, and sends commands to other subsystems, and it receives, processes, formats, and routes data for both the ground and onboard computer. C&DH has the most cyber content and is likely the biggest target for cyberattack. Electrical Power Subsystem (EPS) provides, stores, distributes, and controls power on the satellite. An attack on EPS could disrupt, damage, or destroy the satellite.
SV-SP-1	Exploitation of software vulnerabilities (bugs); Unsecure code, logic errors, etc. in the FSW.
SV-SP-3	Introduction of malicious software such as a virus, worm, Distributed Denial-Of-Service (DDOS) agent, keylogger, rootkit, or Trojan Horse
SV-SP-6	Software reuse, COTS dependence, and standardization of onboard systems using building block approach with addition of open-source technology leads to supply chain threat
SV-SP-9	On-orbit software updates/upgrades/patches/direct memory writes. If TT&C is compromised or MOC or even the developer's environment, the risk exists to do a variation of a supply chain attack where after it is in orbit you inject malicious code
SV-SP-11	Software defined radios - SDR is also another computer, networked to other parts of the spacecraft that could be pivoted to by an attacker and infected with malicious code. Once access to an SDR is gained, the attacker could alter what the SDR thinks is correct frequencies and settings to communicate with the ground.
SV-SP-7	Software can be broken down into three levels (operating system and drivers’ layer, data handling service layer, and the application layer). Highest impact on system is likely the embedded code at the BIOS, kernel/firmware level. Attacking the on-board operating systems. Since it manages all the programs and applications on the computer, it has a critical role in the overall security of the system. Since threats may occur deliberately or due to human error, malicious programs or persons, or existing system vulnerability mitigations must be deployed to protect the OS.
SV-SP-10	Compromise development environment source code (applicable to development environments not covered by threat SV-SP-1, SV-SP-3, and SV-SP-4).
SV-SP-2	Testing only focuses on functional requirements and rarely considers end to end or abuse cases

Sample Requirements

SPARTA ID	Requirement	Rationale/Additional Guidance/Notes
SPR-7	The [organization] shall document and design a security architecture using a defense-in-depth approach that allocates the [organization]s defined safeguards to the indicated locations and layers: [Examples include: operating system abstractions and hardware mechanisms to the separate processors in the platform, internal components, and the FSW].{SV-MA-6}{CA-9,PL-7,PL-8,PL-8(1),SA-8(3),SA-8(4),SA-8(7),SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-8(13),SA-8(19),SA-8(29),SA-8(30)}	Spacecraft security cannot rely on a single control; layered defenses reduce the likelihood of catastrophic compromise. Documenting safeguard allocation across hardware, OS, firmware, and FSW ensures coverage across attack surfaces. This supports resiliency against both cyber intrusion and supply chain weaknesses. Clear documentation enables verification and independent assessment.
SPR-9	The [organization] shall implement a security architecture and design that provides the required security functionality, allocates security controls among physical and logical components, and integrates individual security functions, mechanisms, and processes together to provide required security capabilities and a unified approach to protection.{SV-MA-6}{PL-7,SA-2,SA-8,SA-8(1),SA-8(2),SA-8(3),SA-8(4),SA-8(5),SA-8(6),SA-8(7),SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-8(13),SA-8(19),SA-8(29),SA-8(30),SC-32,SC-32(1)}	Security functionality must be intentionally distributed across physical and logical components rather than bolted on post-design. A unified architecture prevents inconsistent enforcement, duplicated controls, or unprotected interfaces. Integrated design reduces attack surface and improves verification of mission-critical protections.
SPR-16	The [spacecraft] shall ensure that processes reusing a shared system resource (e.g., registers, main memory, secondary storage) do not have access to information (including encrypted representations of information) previously stored in that resource after formal release, by clearing or zeroizing the resource prior to reuse.{SV-AC-6}{AC-3,PM-32,SA-8(2),SA-8(5),SA-8(6),SA-8(19),SC-4,SI-3}	Residual data in memory or registers can create covert channels or leakage paths between partitions. Zeroization prevents recovery of sensitive data by subsequent processes. This mitigates cross-domain leakage and memory scraping attacks. Clearing encrypted remnants is equally important to prevent cryptanalytic exploitation.
SPR-22	The [spacecraft] shall implement boundary protections to separate bus, communications, and payload components supporting their respective functions.{SV-AC-6}{AC-3(3),AC-3(4),CA-9,SA-8(3),SA-8(14),SA-8(18),SA-8(19),SA-17(7),SC-2,SC-2(2),SC-7(13),SC-7(21),SC-7(29),SC-16(3),SC-32,SI-3,SI-4(13),SI-4(25)}	Flat architectures allow compromise of one subsystem to impact all others. Segregated boundaries reduce lateral movement and mission degradation. Isolation ensures payload compromise does not impact TT&C or bus control. This supports containment and survivability.
SPR-23	The [spacecraft] shall isolate mission critical functionality from non-mission critical functionality.{SV-AC-6}{AC-3(3),AC-3(4),CA-9,SA-8(3),SA-8(19),SA-17(7),SC-2,SC-3,SC-3(4),SC-7(13),SC-7(29),SC-32,SC-32(1),SI-3,SI-7(10),SI-7(12)}	Non-critical functions often expand attack surface. Isolation prevents less-trusted components from affecting propulsion, attitude control, or power systems. This reduces cascading failure risk under compromise. Mission-critical systems must maintain operational continuity.
SPR-25	The [spacecraft] shall prevent unauthorized access to system resources by employing an efficient capability based object model that supports both confinement and revocation of these capabilities when the platform security deems it necessary.{SV-AC-6}{AC-3(8),IA-4(9),PM-32,SA-8(2),SA-8(5),SA-8(6),SA-8(18),SA-8(19),SC-2(2),SC-4,SC-16,SC-32,SI-3}	Capability models restrict access to explicit, revocable tokens of authority. This enforces least privilege and supports dynamic revocation under threat conditions. Confinement reduces damage radius of compromised processes. Revocation capability enables adaptive cyber response.
SPR-34	The [spacecraft] shall recover to a known cyber-safe state when an anomaly is detected.{IR-4,IR-4(1),SA-8(16),SA-8(19),SA-8(21),SA-8(24),SI-3,SI-4(7),SI-10(6),SI-13,SI-17}
SPR-41	The [spacecraft] shall maintain a separate execution domain for each executing process.{SV-AC-6}{SA-8(14),SA-8(19),SC-2(2),SC-7(21),SC-39,SI-3}	Process isolation prevents one compromised task from impacting others. Separate execution domains mitigate memory corruption and privilege escalation. This strengthens containment of malicious code. Deterministic isolation enhances both safety and cybersecurity.
SPR-48	The [spacecraft] shall implement cryptographic mechanisms to protect the integrity of audit information and audit tools.{SV-DCO-1}{AU-9(3),RA-10,SC-8(1),SI-3,SI-3(10),SI-4(24)}	Audit logs are essential for attribution and forensic analysis. If adversaries can modify audit data, detection and recovery become unreliable. Cryptographic integrity protections preserve evidentiary value.
SPR-53	The [organization] shall employ automated tools that provide notification to ground operators upon discovering discrepancies during integrity verification.{CM-3(5),CM-6,IR-6,IR-6(2),SA-8(21),SC-51,SI-3,SI-4(7),SI-4(12),SI-4(24),SI-7(2)}
SPR-54	The [spacecraft] shall retain the capability to update/upgrade operating systems while on-orbit.{SV-SP-7}{SA-4(5),SA-8(8),SA-8(31),SA-10(2),SI-3}	The operating system updates should be performed using multi-factor authorization and should only be performed when risk of compromise/exploitation of identified vulnerability outweighs the risk of not performing the update.
SPR-56	The [spacecraft] shall provide automated onboard mechanisms that integrate audit review, analysis, and reporting processes to support mission processes for investigation and response to suspicious activities to determine the attack class in the event of a cyber attack.{SV-DCO-1}{AU-6(1),IR-4,IR-4(1),IR-4(12),IR-4(13),PM-16(1),RA-10,SA-8(21),SA-8(22),SC-5(3),SI-3,SI-3(10),SI-4(7),SI-4(24),SI-7(7)}	* Identifying the class (e.g., exfiltration, Trojans, etc.), nature, or effect of cyberattack (e.g., exfiltration, subverted control, or mission interruption) is necessary to determine the type of response. The first order of identification may be to determine whether the event is an attack or a non-threat event (anomaly). The objective requirement would be to predict the impact of the detected signature. * Unexpected conditions can include RF lockups, loss of lock, failure to acquire an expected contact and unexpected reports of acquisition, unusual AGC and ACS control excursions, unforeseen actuator enabling's or actions, thermal stresses, power aberrations, failure to authenticate, software or counter resets, etc. Mitigation might include additional TMONs, more detailed AGC and PLL thresholds to alert operators, auto-capturing state snapshot images in memory when unexpected conditions occur, signal spectra measurements, and expanded default diagnostic telemetry modes to help in identifying and resolving anomalous conditions.
SPR-57	The [spacecraft] shall monitor and collect all onboard cyber- data (from multiple system components), including identification of potential attacks and information about the attack for subsequent analysis.{SV-DCO-1}{AC-6(9),AC-20,AC-20(1),AU-2,AU-12,IR-4,IR-4(1),RA-10,SI-3,SI-3(10),SI-4,SI-4(1),SI-4(2),SI-4(7),SI-4(24)}	The spacecraft will monitor and collect data that provides accountability of activity occurring onboard the spacecraft. Due to resource limitations on the spacecraft, analysis must be performed to determine which data is critical for retention and which can be filtered. Full system coverage of data and actions is desired as an objective; it will likely be impractical due to the resource limitations. “Cyber-relevant data” refers to all data and actions deemed necessary to support accountability and awareness of onboard cyber activities for the mission. This would include data that may indicate abnormal activities, critical configuration parameters, transmissions on onboard networks, command logging, or other such data items. This set of data items should be identified early in the system requirements and design phase. Cyber-relevant data should support the ability to assess whether abnormal events are unintended anomalies or actual cyber threats. Actual cyber threats may rarely or never occur, but non-threat anomalies occur regularly. The ability to filter out cyber threats for non-cyber threats in relevant time would provide a needed capability. Examples could include successful and unsuccessful attempts to access, modify, or delete privileges, security objects, security levels, or categories of information (e.g., classification levels).
SPR-58	The [spacecraft] shall generate cyber related audit records containing information that establishes what type of event occurred, when the event occurred, where the event occurred, the source of the event, and the outcome of the event. For privileged or hazardous commands, the audit record shall include the approver identifiers and the command identifier.{SV-DCO-1}{AU-3,AU-3(1),AU-12,IR-4,IR-4(1),RA-10,SI-3,SI-3(10),SI-4(7),SI-4(24)}	Detailed audit records are essential for attribution, anomaly detection, and post-incident forensic reconstruction. Capturing what occurred, when, where, and by whom enables rapid differentiation between system fault and adversarial activity. Including approver identifiers for privileged or hazardous commands strengthens accountability and insider threat mitigation. Without complete audit context, recovery and containment decisions may be delayed or misinformed.
SPR-59	The [spacecraft] shall attribute cyber attacks and identify unauthorized use of the platform by downlinking onboard cyber information to the mission ground station within [Program‑defined time ≤ 3 minutes].{SV-DCO-1,SV-IT-1,SV-IT-2}{AU-4(1),IR-4,IR-4(1),IR-4(12),IR-4(13),RA-10,SA-8(22),SI-3,SI-3(10),SI-4,SI-4(5),SI-4(7),SI-4(12),SI-4(24)}	Rapid transmission of cyber-relevant telemetry supports near-real-time ground-based fusion and correlation with enterprise security events. Delayed reporting increases risk of adversary persistence or mission degradation. Early attribution enables containment actions before cascading effects occur. Defined timeliness ensures detection capability aligns with operational tempo.
SPR-60	The [spacecraft] shall integrate cyber related detection and responses with existing fault management capabilities to ensure tight integration between traditional fault management and cyber intrusion detection and prevention.{SV-DCO-1}{AU-6(4),IR-4,IR-4(1),RA-10,SA-8(21),SA-8(26),SC-3(4),SI-3,SI-3(10),SI-4(7),SI-4(13),SI-4(16),SI-4(24),SI-4(25),SI-7(7),SI-13}	The onboard IPS system should be integrated into the existing onboard spacecraft fault management system (FMS) because the FMS has its own fault detection and response system built in. SV corrective behavior is usually limited to automated fault responses and ground commanded recovery actions. Intrusion prevention and response methods will inform resilient cybersecurity design. These methods enable detected threat activity to trigger defensive responses and resilient SV recovery.
SPR-62	The [spacecraft] shall enter a cyber-safe mode when conditions that threaten the platform are detected, enters a cyber-safe mode of operation with restrictions as defined based on the cyber-safe mode.{SV-AV-5,SV-AV-6,SV-AV-7}{CP-10(6),CP-12,CP-13,IR-4,IR-4(1),IR-4(3),PE-10,RA-10,SA-8(16),SA-8(21),SA-8(24),SI-3,SI-4(7),SI-13,SI-17}	Cyber-safe mode provides a deterministic fallback posture when compromise or anomalous conditions threaten mission integrity. Restricting non-essential functions reduces attack surface and prevents further propagation of malicious activity. Defined restrictions ensure predictable behavior under cyber stress conditions. This supports survivability and controlled recovery rather than uncontrolled degradation.
SPR-63	The [spacecraft] shall be able to locate the onboard origin of a cyber attack and alert ground operators within [Program‑defined time ≤ 3 minutes].{SV-DCO-1}{IR-4,IR-4(1),IR-4(12),IR-4(13),RA-10,SA-8(22),SI-3,SI-3(10),SI-4,SI-4(1),SI-4(7),SI-4(12),SI-4(16),SI-4(24)}	The origin of any attack onboard the vehicle should be identifiable to support mitigation. At the very least, attacks from critical element (safety-critical or higher-attack surface) components should be locatable quickly so that timely action can occur.
SPR-66	The [spacecraft] shall be designed and configured so that encrypted communications traffic and data is visible to on-board security monitoring tools.{SV-DCO-1}{RA-10,SA-8(21),SI-3,SI-3(10),SI-4,SI-4(1),SI-4(10),SI-4(13),SI-4(24),SI-4(25)}	Encryption must not blind onboard intrusion detection capabilities. Security tools require access to sufficient context (pre-encryption or post-decryption inspection points) to detect malicious patterns. Without visibility, encrypted channels become covert channels. Proper architectural placement ensures both confidentiality and detectability are preserved.
SPR-67	The [spacecraft] shall be designed and configured so that spacecraft memory can be monitored by the on-board intrusion detection/prevention capability.{SV-DCO-1}{RA-10,SA-8(21),SI-3,SI-3(10),SI-4,SI-4(1),SI-4(24),SI-16}	Many spacecraft attacks target memory corruption, firmware modification, or unauthorized process injection. Monitoring memory state enables detection of tampering, abnormal writes, or execution anomalies. Memory visibility supports early detection of wiper malware or boot-level compromise. This is essential for protecting deterministic flight software environments.
SPR-68	The [spacecraft] shall have on-board intrusion detection/prevention system that monitors the mission critical components or systems.{SV-AC-1,SV-AC-2,SV-MA-4}{RA-10,SC-7,SI-3,SI-3(8),SI-4,SI-4(1),SI-4(7),SI-4(13),SI-4(24),SI-4(25),SI-10(6)}	The mission critical components or systems could be GNC/Attitude Control, C&DH, TT&C, Fault Management.
SPR-69	The [spacecraft] shall alert in the event of the audit/logging processing failures.{SV-DCO-1}{AU-5,AU-5(1),AU-5(2),SI-3,SI-4,SI-4(1),SI-4(7),SI-4(12),SI-4(24)}	Failure of logging mechanisms may signal active tampering or resource exhaustion attacks. Immediate alerting ensures loss of visibility does not go unnoticed. Silent failure of audit systems creates blind spots exploitable by adversaries. Monitoring the monitors is critical to resilient detection.
SPR-71	The [spacecraft] shall provide the capability of a cyber “black-box” to capture necessary data for cyber forensics of threat signatures and anomaly resolution when cyber attacks are detected. The [spacecraft] shall automatically route audit events to the alternate audit logging capability upon primary audit failure and shall resynchronize the alternate store to the primary upon recovery.{SV-DCO-1}{AU-5(5),AU-9(2),AU-9(3),AU-12,IR-4(12),IR-4(13),IR-5(1),SI-3,SI-3(10),SI-4,SI-4(1),SI-4(7),SI-4(24),SI-7(7)}	Similar concept of a "black box" on an aircraft where all critical information is stored for post forensic analysis. Black box can be used to record CPU utilization, GNC physical parameters, audit records, memory contents, TT&C data points, etc. The timeframe is dependent upon implementation but needs to meet the intent of the requirement. For example, 30 days may suffice.
SPR-72	The [spacecraft] shall automatically notify ground operators when onboard integrity verification detects discrepancies.{SV-IT-2}{CM-3(5),SA-8(21),SI-3,SI-4(7),SI-4(12),SI-4(24),SI-7(2),SI-7(12)}	Integrity check failures may indicate unauthorized modification, corruption, or hardware faults induced by malicious activity. Automatic notification ensures ground teams can rapidly assess risk and initiate recovery procedures. Delay in reporting increases mission impact. Transparency between onboard detection and ground response is essential for coordinated defense.
SPR-73	The [spacecraft], upon detection of a potential integrity violation, shall provide the capability to [audit the event and alert ground operators].{SV-DCO-1}{CM-3(5),SA-8(21),SI-3,SI-4(7),SI-4(12),SI-4(24),SI-7(8)}	One example would be for bad commands where the system would reject the command and not increment the Vehicle Command Counter (VCC) and include the information in telemetry.
SPR-74	The [organization] shall define the security safeguards that are to be automatically employed when integrity violations are discovered.{SV-IT-2}{CP-2,SA-8(21),SI-3,SI-4(7),SI-4(12),SI-7(5),SI-7(8)}	Predefined safeguards ensure consistent and timely response to detected integrity violations. Ad hoc response increases uncertainty and recovery time. Automated actions may include isolation, reconstitution from gold images, or transition to cyber-safe mode. Defined response paths improve resilience and reduce operator burden during crisis.
SPR-77	The [spacecraft] shall employ the principle of least privilege, allowing only authorized accesses processes which are necessary to accomplish assigned tasks in accordance with system functions.{SV-AC-6}{AC-3,AC-6,AC-6(9),CA-9,CM-5,CM-5(5),CM-5(6),SA-8(2),SA-8(5),SA-8(6),SA-8(14),SA-8(23),SA-17(7),SC-2,SC-7(29),SC-32,SC-32(1),SI-3}	Least privilege limits damage from compromised processes or insider misuse. Processes receive only the minimum access necessary for assigned functions. This reduces lateral movement and privilege escalation pathways. In deterministic spacecraft systems, privilege boundaries must be tightly defined and enforced.
SPR-78	The [spacecraft] shall provide independent mission/cyber critical threads such that any one credible event will not corrupt another mission/cyber critical thread.{SV-AC-6,SV-MA-3,SV-SP-7}{SC-3,SC-32,SC-32(1),SI-3,SI-13}	Segregating mission-critical and cyber-critical execution paths prevents a single failure or compromise from corrupting other critical functions. Thread independence supports fault containment and resilience under attack. This ensures availability of essential functions even during partial compromise. Isolation strengthens both safety and cybersecurity.
SPR-81	The [spacecraft] shall perform an integrity check of software, firmware, and information at startup or during security- events.{SV-IT-3,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-3}{CM-3(5),SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-8(21),SI-3,SI-7(1),SI-7(10),SI-7(12),SI-7(17)}	Startup integrity checks detect boot-level compromise or unauthorized modification. Event-triggered checks provide additional protection when anomalies occur. This limits adversary persistence across reboots. Continuous validation reinforces trusted boot regimes.
SPR-88	The [spacecraft] shall detect and recover from detected memory errors or transitions to a known cyber-safe state.{SV-IT-4,SV-AV-6}{IR-4,IR-4(1),SA-8(16),SA-8(24),SI-3,SI-4(7),SI-10(6),SI-13,SI-17}	Memory corruption may result from radiation, fault injection, or malicious manipulation. Detection prevents silent data corruption from propagating to mission-critical functions. Recovery mechanisms or safe-state transitions preserve availability. Rapid containment supports mission survivability.
SPR-91	The [spacecraft] shall prevent the installation of Flight Software without verification that the component has been digitally signed.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-9}{CM-3,CM-3(8),CM-5,CM-5(3),CM-14,SA-8(8),SA-8(31),SA-10(2),SI-3,SI-7(12),SI-7(15)}	Requiring digital signature verification before installing flight software prevents unauthorized, malicious, or tampered code from being introduced into the spacecraft environment. Software supply chain compromise is a high-impact attack vector that can result in persistent control or loss of mission. Cryptographic validation ensures only approved and trusted binaries are executed. This maintains integrity of the trusted computing baseline.
SPR-92	The [spacecraft] shall verify the correct operation of security- software and hardware mechanisms.{SV-DCO-1}{SA-8(21),SI-3,SI-6}	Security controls that fail silently create false confidence and blind spots. Continuous or periodic verification ensures cryptographic modules, access controls, logging mechanisms, and monitoring functions remain operational. Attackers often attempt to disable protections prior to executing malicious actions. Independent health checks preserve detection and enforcement reliability.
SPR-229	The [organization] shall protect documentation and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) as required, in accordance with the risk management strategy.{SV-CF-3,SV-SP-4,SV-SP-10}{AC-3,CM-12,CP-2,PM-17,RA-5(4),SA-3,SA-3(1),SA-5,SA-10,SC-8(1),SC-28(3),SI-12}	Documentation may reveal architecture details exploitable by adversaries. Proper handling prevents leakage. Protection of CUI supports regulatory compliance. Information governance complements technical controls.
SPR-230	The [organization] shall identify and properly classify mission sensitive design/operations information and access control shall be applied in accordance with classification guides and applicable federal laws, Executive Orders, directives, policies, regulations, and standards.{SV-CF-3,SV-AV-5}{AC-3,CM-12,CP-2,PM-17,RA-5(4),SA-3,SA-3(1),SA-5,SA-8(19),SC-8(1),SC-28(3),SI-12}	* Mission sensitive information should be classified as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) or formally known as Sensitive but Unclassified. Ideally these artifacts would be rated SECRET or higher and stored on classified networks. Mission sensitive information can typically include a wide range of candidate material: the functional and performance specifications, the RF ICDs, databases, scripts, simulation and rehearsal results/reports, descriptions of uplink protection including any disabling/bypass features, failure/anomaly resolution, and any other sensitive information related to architecture, software, and flight/ground /mission operations. This could all need protection at the appropriate level (e.g., unclassified, SBU, classified, etc.) to mitigate levels of cyber intrusions that may be conducted against the project’s networks. Stand-alone systems and/or separate database encryption may be needed with controlled access and on-going Configuration Management to ensure changes in command procedures and critical database areas are tracked, controlled, and fully tested to avoid loss of science or the entire mission.
SPR-233	The [organization] shall identify the applicable physical and environmental protection policies covering the development environment and spacecraft hardware. {SV-SP-4,SV-SP-5,SV-SP-10}{PE-1,PE-14,SA-3,SA-3(1),SA-10(3)}	Development environments must be protected from tampering. Physical controls prevent hardware supply chain compromise. Policy clarity ensures consistent safeguards. Secure development underpins secure deployment.
SPR-234	The [organization] shall develop and document program-specific identification and authentication policies for accessing the development environment and spacecraft. {SV-SP-10,SV-AC-4}{AC-3,AC-14,IA-1,SA-3,SA-3(1)}	Strong authentication prevents unauthorized development access. Development compromise can introduce malicious code. Documented policies ensure consistent enforcement. Identity governance supports supply chain integrity.
SPR-235	The [organization] shall ensure security requirements/configurations are placed in accordance with NIST 800-171 with enhancements in 800-172 on the development environments to prevent the compromise of source code from supply chain or information leakage perspective.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-10,SV-CF-3}{AC-3,SA-3,SA-3(1),SA-15}	Supply chain threats target development environments. Enhanced controls reduce risk of source code exfiltration. Compliance strengthens contractual and regulatory assurance. Development security directly impacts spacecraft integrity.
SPR-236	The [organization] shall implement a verifiable flaw remediation process into the developmental and operational configuration management process.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{CA-2,CA-5,SA-3,SA-3(1),SA-11,SI-3,SI-3(10)}	The verifiable process should also include a cross reference to mission objectives and impact statements. Understanding the flaws discovered and how they correlate to mission objectives will aid in prioritization.
SPR-237	The [organization] shall establish robust procedures and technical methods to perform testing to include adversarial testing (i.e.abuse cases) of the platform hardware and software.{SV-SP-2,SV-SP-1}{CA-8,CP-4(5),RA-5,RA-5(1),RA-5(2),SA-3,SA-4(3),SA-11,SA-11(1),SA-11(2),SA-11(5),SA-11(7),SA-11(8),SA-15(7)}	Abuse-case testing reveals design weaknesses before deployment. Red-teaming strengthens defensive posture. Proactive validation reduces operational risk. Testing must simulate realistic threat scenarios.
SPR-238	The [organization] shall require subcontractors developing information system components or providing information system services (as appropriate) to demonstrate the use of a system development life cycle that includes [state-of-the-practice system/security engineering methods, software development methods, testing/evaluation/validation techniques, and quality control processes].{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-9}{SA-3,SA-4(3)}	Select the particular subcontractors, software vendors, and manufacturers based on the criticality analysis performed for the Program Protection Plan and the criticality of the components that they supply. Examples of good security practices would be using defense-in-depth tactics across the board, least-privilege being implemented, two factor authentication everywhere possible, using DevSecOps, implementing and validating adherence to secure coding standards, performing static code analysis, component/origin analysis for open source, fuzzing/dynamic analysis with abuse cases, etc.
SPR-245	The [organization] shall define processes and procedures to be followed when integrity verification tools detect unauthorized changes to software, firmware, and information.{SV-IT-2}{CM-3,CM-3(1),CM-3(5),CM-5(6),CM-6,CP-2,IR-6,IR-6(2),PM-30,SC-16(1),SC-51,SI-3,SI-4(7),SI-4(24),SI-7,SI-7(7),SI-7(10)}	Predefined response procedures reduce reaction time. Clear escalation paths improve containment. Consistent handling prevents confusion during incidents. Preparedness strengthens resilience.
SPR-250	The [organization] shall verify that the scope of security testing/evaluation provides complete coverage of required security controls (to include abuse cases and penetration testing) at the depth of testing defined in the test documents.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{CA-2,CA-8,RA-5(3),SA-11(5),SA-11(7)}	* The frequency of testing should be driven by Program completion events and updates. * Examples of approaches are static analyses, dynamic analyses, binary analysis, or a hybrid of the three approaches
SPR-251	The [organization] shall maintain evidence of the execution of the security assessment plan and the results of the security testing/evaluation.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{CA-2,CA-8,SA-11}	Documented evidence provides traceability and accountability for security testing activities. Without retained artifacts, organizations cannot demonstrate due diligence or validate corrective actions. Preserved results support audits, mission reviews, and lessons learned. This strengthens governance and compliance posture.
SPR-252	The [organization] shall create and implement a security assessment plan that includes: (1) The types of analyses, testing, evaluation, and reviews of all software and firmware components; (2) The degree of rigor to be applied to include abuse cases and/or penetration testing; and (3) The types of artifacts produced during those processes.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{CA-2,CA-8,SA-11,SA-11(5)}	The security assessment plan should include evaluation of mission objectives in relation to the security of the mission. Assessments should not only be control based but also functional based to ensure mission is resilient against failures of controls.
SPR-254	The [organization] shall employ dynamic analysis (e.g.using simulation, penetration testing, fuzzing, etc.) to identify software/firmware weaknesses and vulnerabilities in developed and incorporated code (open source, commercial, or third-party developed code).{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{CA-8,CM-10(1),RA-3(1),SA-11(5),SA-11(8),SA-11(9),SI-3,SI-7(10)}	Dynamic testing uncovers runtime vulnerabilities not visible through static review. Techniques such as fuzzing and penetration testing simulate realistic adversarial behavior. Runtime validation improves detection of memory corruption, logic flaws, and unsafe state transitions. This reduces latent vulnerabilities prior to deployment.
SPR-255	The [organization] shall employ independent third-party analysis and penetration testing of all software (COTS, FOSS, Custom) associated with the system, system components, or system services.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6}{CA-2,CA-2(1),CA-8(1),CM-10(1),SA-9,SA-11(3),SA-12(11),SI-3,SI-3(10),SR-4(4),SR-6(1)}	Independent assessment reduces bias and uncovers blind spots in internal reviews. External testers provide objective validation of system resilience. Independent penetration testing strengthens confidence in defensive posture. Separation of duties enhances credibility and assurance.
SPR-265	The [organization] shall report identified systems or system components containing software affected by recently announced cybersecurity-related software flaws (and potential vulnerabilities resulting from those flaws) to [organization] officials with cybersecurity responsibilities.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-11}{IR-6,IR-6(2),SI-2,SI-3,SI-4(12),SR-4(4)}	Rapid reporting of vulnerable components enables proactive remediation. Awareness of newly disclosed flaws prevents exploitation. Coordination ensures mission-wide response. Visibility reduces systemic risk.
SPR-266	The [organization] shall determine the vulnerabilities/weaknesses that require remediation, and coordinate the timeline for that remediation, in accordance with the analysis of the vulnerability scan report, the mission assessment of risk, and mission needs.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{CA-5,CM-3,RA-5,RA-7,SI-3,SI-3(10)}	Not all vulnerabilities carry equal mission impact. Risk-informed prioritization ensures critical flaws are addressed first. Coordinated timelines balance mission needs with security posture. Structured remediation strengthens governance.
SPR-267	The [organization] shall perform software component analysis (a.k.a.origin analysis) for developed or acquired software.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-6}{CM-10,CM-10(1),RA-3(1),RA-5,SA-15(7),SI-3,SI-3(10),SR-4(4)}	Origin analysis identifies embedded third-party libraries and dependencies. Transparency reduces supply chain opacity. Knowing component lineage enables targeted vulnerability tracking. This mitigates inherited risk.
SPR-268	The [organization] shall share information obtained from the vulnerability scanning process and security control assessments with [Program-defined personnel or roles] to help eliminate similar vulnerabilities in other systems (i.e., systemic weaknesses or deficiencies).{SV-SP-1}{RA-5}	Sharing scan results prevents repeated weaknesses across systems. Enterprise/Mission visibility reduces systemic vulnerabilities. Collaborative learning enhances resilience. Cross-program transparency strengthens collective defense.
SPR-269	The [organization] shall ensure that the vulnerability scanning tools (e.g., static analysis and/or component analysis tools) used include the capability to readily update the list of potential information system vulnerabilities to be scanned.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{RA-5,RA-5(1),RA-5(3),SI-3}	Threat landscapes evolve rapidly. Regular tool updates ensure detection coverage remains current. Outdated signatures create blind spots. Continuous improvement sustains effectiveness.
SPR-270	The [organization] shall perform vulnerability analysis and risk assessment of all systems and software. The analysis shall include results from hardware‑in‑the‑loop vulnerability scanning of flight software, firmware, and link‑segment interfaces.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{RA-5,RA-5(3),SA-15(7),SI-3}	Integrated hardware-in-the-loop testing identifies operationally relevant weaknesses. Combined software, firmware, and interface scanning provides holistic coverage. Risk assessment ensures mitigation aligns with mission priorities. End-to-end analysis strengthens assurance.
SPR-271	The [organization] shall ensure that vulnerability scanning tools and techniques are employed that facilitate interoperability among tools and automate parts of the vulnerability management process by using standards for: (1) Enumerating platforms, custom software flaws, and improper configurations; (2) Formatting checklists and test procedures; and (3) Measuring vulnerability impact. Scanning shall cover flight software, firmware, and link‑segment interfaces in hardware‑in‑the‑loop environments.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{RA-5,RA-5(3),SI-3}	Component/Origin scanning looks for open-source libraries/software that may be included into the baseline and looks for known vulnerabilities and open-source license violations.
SPR-272	The [organization] shall perform static binary analysis of all firmware that is utilized on the spacecraft.{SV-SP-7,SV-SP-11}{RA-5,SA-10,SA-11,SI-7(10)}	Many commercial products/parts are utilized within the system and should be analyzed for security weaknesses. Blindly accepting the firmware is free of weakness is unacceptable for high assurance missions. The intent is to not blindly accept firmware from unknown sources and assume it is secure. This is meant to apply to firmware the vendors are not developing internally. In-house developed firmware should be going through the vendor's own testing program and have high assurance it is secure. When utilizing firmware from other sources, "expecting" does not meet this requirement. Each supplier needs to provide evidence to support that claim that their firmware they are getting is genuine and secure.
SPR-273	The [organization] shall perform static source code analysis for all available source code looking for [[organization]-defined Top CWE List] weaknesses using complimentary set of static code analysis tools (i.e.more than one).{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{RA-5,SA-11(1),SA-15(7)}	Static analysis detects coding weaknesses before execution. Using multiple tools increases detection coverage. Alignment with defined CWE priorities ensures focus on high-risk flaws. Early detection reduces downstream remediation cost.
SPR-274	The [organization] shall analyze vulnerability/weakness scan reports and results from security control assessments.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{RA-5,SI-3}	Scan results require expert interpretation to avoid false positives or overlooked risks. Structured analysis ensures meaningful remediation. Correlating findings with mission context refines prioritization. Review strengthens governance.
SPR-275	The [organization] shall have automated means to evaluate adherence to coding standards.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-15,SA-15(7),RA-5}	Manual review cannot scale across the code base; you must have a way to scale in order to confirm your coding standards are being met. The intent is for automated means to ensure code adheres to a coding standard.
SPR-276	The [organization] shall perform component analysis (a.k.a.origin analysis) for developed or acquired software.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-15(7),RA-5}
SPR-277	In coordination with [organization], the [organization] shall prioritize and remediate flaws identified during security testing/evaluation.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-3}{CA-2,CA-5,SA-11,SI-3,SI-3(10)}	Timely remediation reduces exploitation window. Coordination ensures mission continuity during patching. Documented prioritization demonstrates due diligence. Structured response enhances accountability.
SPR-278	The [organization] shall correct flaws identified during security testing/evaluation.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-11}	Flaws that impact the mission objectives should be prioritized.
SPR-279	The [organization] shall perform [Selection (one or more): unit; integration; system; regression] testing/evaluation at [Program-defined depth and coverage].{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-11}	The depth needs to include functional testing as well as negative/abuse testing.
SPR-280	The [organization] shall require the developer of the system, system component, or system service to deliver the system, component, or service with [Program-defined security configurations] implemented.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-9}{SA-4(5)}	For the spacecraft FSW, the defined security configuration could include to ensure the software does not contain a pre-defined list of Common Weakness Enumerations (CWEs)and/or CAT I/II Application STIGs.
SPR-282	The [organization] shall use all-source intelligence analysis of suppliers and potential suppliers of the information system, system components, or system services to inform engineering, acquisition, and risk management decisions.{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-4,SV-AV-7,SV-SP-11}{PM-16,PM-30,RA-2,RA-3(1),RA-3(2),RA-7,SA-9,SA-12(8),SR-5(2)}	* The Program should also consider sub suppliers and potential sub suppliers. * All-source intelligence of suppliers that the organization may use includes: (1) Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Threat Assessment Center (TAC), the enterprise focal point for supplier threat assessments for the DOD acquisition community risks; (2) Other U.S. Government resources including: (a) Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) – Database where government and industry can record issues with suppliers, including counterfeits; and (b) System for Award Management (SAM) – Database of companies that are barred from doing business with the US Government.
SPR-284	The [organization] shall use all-source intelligence analysis on threats to mission critical capabilities and/or system components to inform risk management decisions.{SV-MA-4}{PM-16,RA-3(2),RA-3(3),RA-7,RA-9,SA-12(8),SA-15(8)}	Intelligence-informed risk management anticipates adversary capabilities. External threat awareness improves proactive defense. Integration into decision-making strengthens resilience. Threat-informed design reduces reactive posture.
SPR-285	The [organization] risk assessment shall include the full end to end communication pathway (i.e., round trip) to include any crosslink communications.{SV-MA-4}{AC-20,AC-20(1),AC-20(3),RA-3,SA-8(18)}	Full pathway analysis prevents overlooking intermediate segments. Crosslinks may introduce lateral risk exposure. Round-trip evaluation strengthens confidentiality and integrity assurance. Holistic view reduces blind spots.
SPR-286	The [organization] shall conduct an assessment of risk prior to each milestone review [SRR\PDR\CDR], including the likelihood and magnitude of harm, from the unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of the platform and the information it processes, stores, or transmits.{SV-MA-4}{RA-2,RA-3,SA-8(25)}	Major design decisions must reflect updated threat posture. Pre-milestone risk review prevents costly redesign. Structured evaluation supports informed governance. Early risk integration enhances mission confidence.
SPR-287	The [organization] shall document risk assessment results in [risk assessment report].{SV-MA-4}{RA-3}	Formal documentation preserves rationale for decisions. Traceability enables future reassessment. Written records support compliance. Documentation strengthens transparency.
SPR-288	The [organization] shall review risk assessment results [At least annually if not otherwise defined in formal organizational policy].{SV-MA-4}{RA-3}	Periodic review ensures evolving threats are considered. Regular reassessment prevents stagnation. Continuous evaluation supports adaptive defense. Governance must be iterative.
SPR-289	The [organization] shall update the risk assessment [At least annually if not otherwise defined in formal institutional policy] or whenever there are significant changes to the information system or environment of operation (including the identification of new threats and vulnerabilities), or other conditions that may impact the security state of the spacecraft.{SV-MA-4}{RA-3}	System modifications alter risk posture. Immediate reassessment ensures continued compliance. Responsive review strengthens mission assurance. Risk management must be dynamic.
SPR-290	The [organization] shall document risk assessment results in risk assessment report upon completion of each risk assessment.{SV-MA-6}{RA-3,RA-7}	Formal documentation preserves rationale for decisions. Traceability enables future reassessment. Written records support compliance. Documentation strengthens transparency.
SPR-291	The [organization] shall use the threat and vulnerability analyses of the as-built system, system components, or system services to inform and direct subsequent testing/evaluation of the as-built system, component, or service.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{RA-3(3),SA-11(2),SA-15(8),SI-3}	Security analysis should guide test design. Threat-informed evaluation improves relevance. Feedback loops strengthen defensive posture. Analytical alignment enhances coverage.
SPR-295	The [organization] shall perform and document threat and vulnerability analyses of the as-built system, system components, or system services.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-11(2),SI-3}	Formal records preserve findings and mitigation strategies. Documentation supports lifecycle traceability. Transparent records enhance oversight. Governance requires evidence.
SPR-299	The [organization] shall develop, document, and maintain under configuration control, a current baseline configuration of the spacecrafts.{SV-SP-9,SV-MA-6}{CM-2,CM-3(7),CM-4(2),CM-6,SA-8(30),SA-10}	Configuration control ensures traceability of hardware and software states. Unauthorized changes undermine security posture. Accurate baselines enable recovery and audit. Governance depends on configuration integrity.
SPR-300	The [organization] shall maintain the integrity of the mapping between the master build data (hardware drawings and software/firmware code) describing the current version of hardware, software, and firmware and the on-site master copy of the data for the current version.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-9}{CM-6,SA-8(21),SA-8(30),SA-10,SA-10(3),SA-10(4),SA-10(5),SI-7(10),SR-4(4)}	Build data linkage ensures reproducibility and traceability. Tampering detection depends on accurate mapping. Integrity of master copies prevents unauthorized modification. Configuration discipline supports resilience.
SPR-301	The [organization] shall develop a security plan for the spacecraft.{SV-MA-6}{PL-2,PL-7,PM-1,SA-8(29),SA-8(30)}	A comprehensive security plan aligns controls with mission objectives. Clear articulation ensures consistent implementation. Planning integrates security into operations. Formal documentation strengthens accountability.
SPR-302	The [organization] shall document the platform's security architecture, and how it is established within and is an integrated part of the overall [organization] mission security architecture.{SV-MA-6,SV-MA-4}{PL-7,SA-8(7),SA-8(13),SA-8(29),SA-8(30),SA-17}	Architecture documentation provides structural clarity. Integration into enterprise mission security ensures alignment. Clear documentation reduces misinterpretation. Transparency strengthens lifecycle governance.
SPR-308	The [organization] shall protect against supply chain threats to the system, system components, or system services by employing security safeguards as defined by NIST SP 800-161 Rev.1.{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-4,SV-AV-7,SV-SP-11}{PM-30,RA-3(1),SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-12,SI-3,SR-1}	The chosen supply chain safeguards should demonstrably support a comprehensive, defense-in-breadth information security strategy. Safeguards should include protections for both hardware and software. Program should define their critical components (HW & SW) and identify the supply chain protections, approach/posture/process.
SPR-323	The [organization] prohibits the use of binary or machine-executable code from sources with limited or no warranty and without the provision of source code.{CM-7(8),CM-7(8),CM-10(1),SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-10(2),SI-3,SR-4(4)}
SPR-329	The [organization] shall perform manual code review of all produced code looking for quality, maintainability, and security flaws.{SV-SP-1}{SA-11(4),SI-3,SI-3(10),SR-4(4)}	Automated tools may miss contextual or logic-based flaws. Manual review improves detection of subtle security weaknesses. Human analysis enhances code quality and maintainability. Combined approaches strengthen overall assurance.
SPR-331	The [organization] shall test software and firmware updates related to flaw remediation for effectiveness and potential side effects on mission systems in a separate test environment before installation.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{CM-3,CM-3(1),CM-3(2),CM-4(1),CM-4(2),CM-10(1),SA-8(31),SA-11(9),SI-2,SI-3,SI-3(10),SI-7(10),SI-7(12),SR-5(2)}	This requirement is focused on software and firmware flaws. If hardware flaw remediation is required, refine the requirement to make this clear.
SPR-337	The [organization] shall ensure that the list of potential system vulnerabilities scanned is updated [prior to a new scan] {SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{RA-5(2),SI-3}	Outdated vulnerability signatures reduce detection capability. Updating scan definitions ensures coverage against emerging threats. Proactive updates prevent blind spots. Continuous refresh strengthens scanning effectiveness.
SPR-397	The [organization] shall create prioritized list of software weakness classes (e.g., Common Weakness Enumerations) to be used during static code analysis for prioritization of static analysis results.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-11(1),SA-15(7)}	The prioritized list of CWEs should be created considering operational environment, attack surface, etc. Results from the threat modeling and attack surface analysis should be used as inputs into the CWE prioritization process. There is also a CWSS (https://cwe.mitre.org/cwss/cwss_v1.0.1.html) process that can be used to prioritize CWEs. The prioritized list of CWEs can help with tools selection as well as you select tools based on their ability to detect certain high priority CWEs.
SPR-435	For FPGA pre-silicon artifacts that are developed, coded, and tested by a developer that is not accredited, the [organization] shall be subjected to a development environment and pre-silicon artifacts risk assessment by [organization]. Based on the results of the risk assessment, the [organization] may need to implement protective measures or other processes to ensure the integrity of the FPGA pre-silicon artifacts.{SV-SP-5}{SA-3,SA-3(1),SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-12,SA-12(1),SR-1,SR-5}	DOD-I-5200.44 requires the following: 4.c.2 “Control the quality, configuration, and security of software, firmware, hardware, and systems throughout their lifecycles... Employ protections that manage risk in the supply chain… (e.g., integrated circuits, field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA), printed circuit boards) when they are identifiable (to the supplier) as having a DOD end-use. “ 4.e “In applicable systems, integrated circuit-related products and services shall be procured from a Trusted supplier accredited by the Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) when they are custom-designed, custommanufactured, or tailored for a specific DOD military end use (generally referred to as application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC)). “ 1.g “In coordination with the DOD CIO, the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Heads of the DOD Components, develop a strategy for managing risk in the supply chain for integrated circuit-related products and services (e.g., FPGAs, printed circuit boards) that are identifiable to the supplier as specifically created or modified for DOD (e.g., military temperature range, radiation hardened).
SPR-436	The [organization] shall require the developer of the system, system component, or system services to demonstrate the use of a system development life cycle that includes [state-of-the-practice system/security engineering methods, software development methods, testing/evaluation/validation techniques, and quality control processes].{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-9}{SA-3,SA-4(3)}	Examples of good security practices would be using defense-in-depth tactics across the board, least-privilege being implemented, two factor authentication everywhere possible, using DevSecOps, implementing and validating adherence to secure coding standards, performing static code analysis, component/origin analysis for open source, fuzzing/dynamic analysis with abuse cases, etc.
SPR-437	The [organization] shall enable integrity verification of software and firmware components.{SV-IT-2}{CM-3(5),CM-5(6),CM-10(1),SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-8(21),SA-10(1),SI-3,SI-4(24),SI-7,SI-7(10),SI-7(12),SR-4(4)}	* The integrity verification mechanisms may include: Stipulating and monitoring logical delivery of products and services, requiring downloading from approved, verification-enhanced sites; Encrypting elements (software, software patches, etc.) and supply chain process data in transit (motion) and at rest throughout delivery; Requiring suppliers to provide their elements “secure by default”, so that additional configuration is required to make the element insecure; Implementing software designs using programming languages and tools that reduce the likelihood of weaknesses; Implementing cryptographic hash verification; and Establishing performance and sub-element baseline for the system and system elements to help detect unauthorized tampering/modification during repairs/refurbishing. Stipulating and monitoring logical delivery of products and services, requiring downloading from approved, verification-enhanced sites; Encrypting elements (software, software patches, etc.) and supply chain process data in transit (motion) and at rest throughout delivery; Requiring suppliers to provide their elements “secure by default”, so that additional configuration is required to make the element insecure; Implementing software designs using programming languages and tools that reduce the likelihood of weaknesses; Implementing cryptographic hash verification; and Establishing performance and sub-element baseline for the system and system elements to help detect unauthorized tampering/modification during repairs/refurbishing.
SPR-450	The [spacecraft] shall prevent flight software and payload applications from modifying access control labels or rules and shall validate label integrity at startup and during policy updates.{SV-AC-1,SV-IT-2}{AC-3(3),AC-3(11).AC-16,SI-7}	Label integrity ensures policy decisions remain trustworthy. Preventing modification protects data classification enforcement. Validation at startup prevents persistent compromise. Policy integrity underpins MAC assurance.
SPR-478	The [organization] shall map supplier failure impact to mission functions and assign risk-based oversight and acceptance criteria.{SV-SP-4,SV-MA-6}{PM-30(1),SR-2,RA-3}	Understanding supplier failure impact informs oversight priority. Risk-based criteria ensure proportional governance. Structured assessment prevents blind spots. Supply chain risk alignment strengthens mission resilience.
SPR-503	The [organization] shall validate authenticity and integrity of all flight-designated hardware, firmware, and software upon receipt using program-controlled trust anchors (approved vendor list, golden hash/cert manifest){SV-SP-4,SV-SP-5}{SR-4(3),SR-11,SI-7}	Receipt validation prevents counterfeit or tampered parts integration. Program-controlled trust anchors ensure consistency. Early detection reduces downstream risk. Intake verification strengthens SCRM posture.
SPR-504	The [organization] shall re-validate component identity (serial/lot), firmware measurements (cryptographic hashes), and certificate status immediately prior to installation, writing results to the SCRM/provenance ledger and blocking install on mismatch.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-5}{SR-4(3),SR-11,SI-7}	Installation-time validation prevents stale or revoked components. Ledger recording strengthens traceability. Blocking on mismatch prevents compromise propagation. Continuous verification enhances assurance.
SPR-505	The [spacecraft] shall cryptographically verify boot images and configurations at power-on and after any update{SV-IT-3,SV-SP-9}{SR-4(3),SI-7,CM-14}	Secure boot prevents execution of unauthorized code. Post-update verification ensures integrity continuity. Root-of-trust enforcement protects mission-critical logic. Deterministic startup strengthens resilience.
SPR-528	The [organization] shall package each flight change (software, bitstreams, configuration tables) with a signed manifest, precondition checks (mode, power/thermal, link), explicit hold/commit points, and resumable procedures across AOS/LOS; the [spacecraft] shall enforce manifest checks prior to activation.{SV-SP-9,SV-IT-2}{CM-3,CM-3(2),SI-7,SA-10}	Manifest enforcement ensures integrity prior to activation. Precondition checks prevent unsafe changes. Resumable logic supports space contact constraints. Structured packaging strengthens update security.
SPR-530	The [spacecraft] shall enable selected maintenance capabilities only within time‑bounded and mode‑bounded windows, audit enable/disable events, auto‑revert on timeout/reset, and expose enabled/disabled capability state in telemetry.{SV-AC-8,SV-AC-4}{CM-7,CM-7(2),SA-8,SA-8(14),AC-3}	Maintenance capabilities expand risk surface. Time-limited activation reduces abuse window. Telemetry exposure ensures oversight. Auto-revert strengthens containment.
SPR-531	The [spacecraft] shall enforce whitelisting for executable images and mission scripts/procedures by ID, hash, or signature, accept only artifacts produced by the mission build pipeline, and constrain interpreters/macros to sandboxed contexts with provenance checks on inputs.{SV-SP-9,SV-SP-4}{CM-7,CM-7(5),CM-7(8),SI-7}	Accepting only pipeline-produced artifacts prevents unauthorized code execution. Hash/signature validation ensures integrity. Sandbox constraints limit interpreter abuse. Provenance enforcement strengthens defense.
SPR-537	The [organization] shall define event‑driven triggers for rapid risk reassessment (e.g., new images/bitstreams, key rotations, partner‑station onboarding, notable anomalies, vendor advisories) and rehearse fast‑turn evaluations in a twin/flatsat to drive decisions within one or two passes.{SV-SP-6,SV-SP-9}{RA-3,RA-3(1),CA-7}	Triggers ensure timely re-evaluation after impactful events. Flatsat rehearsal validates mitigation feasibility. Rapid cycles align with limited contact windows. Structured agility strengthens mission defense.
SPR-547	The [spacecraft] shall support chunked uploads of software/bitstreams/configuration with per‑chunk verification and commit markers, resumable across passes, with atomic activation and rollback if activation checks fail.{SV-SP-9,SV-IT-2}{SI-7,SI-7(15)}	Per-chunk verification prevents partial corruption. Atomic activation avoids inconsistent states. Rollback ensures safe recovery. Structured update logic strengthens resilience.

Vulnerability Scanning

Sources

Pre-Operations Government

Pre-Operations Developer/Supplier

Sustainment & Maintenance Government

Sustainment & Maintenance Developer/Supplier

NIST Rev5 Controls

D3FEND Techniques

D3FEND Artifacts

ISO 27001

NASA Best Practice Guide

ESA Space Shield Mitigation

Related MITRE EMB3D Mitigations

Related CSF 2.0

Related BSI Security Measures

Techniques Addressed by Countermeasure

Space Threats Addressed by Countermeasure

Sample Requirements