Dynamic Testing

Dynamic analysis subjects executing software and firmware to active testing conditions to identify weaknesses and vulnerabilities that static analysis alone cannot detect, including runtime memory corruption, logic errors, timing vulnerabilities, and interface behaviors that only manifest under operational conditions. Applicable techniques include simulation-based testing, penetration testing, fuzz testing, and adversarial emulation using realistic threat actor tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). Dynamic testing must be applied to all software and firmware categories: mission-developed code, open-source components, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software, and third-party developed code. Dynamic testing should be performed on potential system elements before acceptance, include realistic simulation of known adversary TTPs, and tools, and continue throughout the lifecycle on applicable physical and logical systems, elements, and processes. Full-scale hardware integration testbeds, commonly referred to as flat satellite (FLATSAT) environments, provide high-fidelity physical test platforms for dynamic analysis; digital twins implemented via instruction set simulation, also known as emulation, provide a flexible and scalable alternative environment capable of supporting TTP execution across a broad range of test scenarios without requiring physical hardware availability.

Sources

CCSDS A13.1-Y-1 — CCSDS Recommended Procedures for Cloud-Based Interoperability Testing

ID: CM0018

Tier: I

Ground CM

Created: 2022/10/19

Last Modified: 2026/08/06

Pre-Operations Government

Acquisition requirements should mandate dynamic testing as a distinct, recurring program activity separate from static analysis, with requirements specifying the testing techniques to be employed, the software and firmware categories subject to testing, and the lifecycle stages at which testing must occur. Contract language should require that dynamic testing be conducted in an environment sufficiently representative of the operational hardware, software, interfaces, and mission behaviors necessary for the test objectives. Known differences between the test environment and operational system should be documented and considered when interpreting test results. Requirements should specify that at least one dynamic testing event prior to system acceptance include adversarial simulation using TTPs relevant to the mission's threat environment, with results documented and submitted to government technical authorities as a controlled deliverable. Evaluation criteria should assess offerors' proposed dynamic testing methodologies, their access to or plans to develop appropriate test environments, and their demonstrated experience conducting adversarial simulation against space or similarly constrained embedded systems. Verification and validation plans should confirm that dynamic testing findings are tracked to remediation, mitigation, or documented risk acceptance before applicable acceptance milestones are approved.

Pre-Operations Developer/Supplier

Dynamic testing infrastructure should be planned and resourced during the system design phase, as the lead time required to establish a FLATSAT testbed or develop a sufficiently accurate digital twin is substantial and cannot be treated as an afterthought in the integration and test schedule. The choice of physical testbed, hardware-in-the-loop, simulation, or emulation environment should be driven by the TTPs being exercised and the required test fidelity. Scenarios involving physical interfaces, hardware-specific behavior, or real-time timing characteristics may require a FLATSAT or hardware-in-the-loop environment, while software-focused testing may be performed in an emulated environment when it adequately represents the target system. Radiation effects require appropriate radiation testing or fault-injection methods and should not be assumed to be reproduced by a FLATSAT alone. Fuzz testing should be applied systematically to applicable externally reachable and trust-boundary interfaces, with test inputs informed by the protocols and data formats the system is expected to process. Penetration testing engagements should be scoped to include adversarial simulation exercises that replicate the TTPs of threat actors known to target space systems, with testers provided sufficient mission context to execute realistic attack chains rather than generic vulnerability exploitation. Dynamic testing findings should be entered into the vulnerability management workflow and prioritized based on exploitability, affected mission functions, existing countermeasures, and potential mission consequence.

Sustainment & Maintenance Government

Operational dynamic testing requires that test environments be maintained in synchronization with the current operational baseline, as testing against an outdated configuration produces findings that may not accurately reflect the risk posture of the deployed system. FLATSAT and digital twin environments should be updated as part of each software or firmware change cycle, with configuration management records confirming that the test environment reflects the approved operational baseline before testing begins. Fuzz testing campaigns and penetration testing scopes should be reviewed and updated at each testing cycle to incorporate new interfaces, updated protocols, and newly identified TTP variants relevant to the mission, preventing the test program from becoming stale relative to the evolving attack surface. Anomalies detected during operational dynamic testing that indicate previously unknown vulnerabilities should be triaged immediately against the mission's risk criteria, with high-severity findings treated as potential active risks requiring expedited remediation regardless of where they fall in the scheduled patch cycle. Records of all dynamic testing activities, including test configurations, TTP scenarios executed, findings, and disposition decisions, should be retained as controlled artifacts and protected consistent with the program's sensitive information handling requirements.

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.
	.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.
	.03	Hardware Supply Chain	Adversaries alter boards, modules, or programmable logic prior to delivery to create latent access or reliability sabotage. Tactics include inserting hardware Trojans in ASIC/FPGA designs, modifying bitstreams or disabling security fuses, leaving debug interfaces (JTAG/SWD/UART) active, substituting near-spec counterfeits, or embedding parts that fail after specific environmental or temporal conditions (“time-bomb” components). Other avenues target programming stations and “golden” images so entire lots inherit the same weakness. Microcontroller boot configurations, peripheral EEPROMs, and supervisory controllers are common leverage points because small changes there can reshape trust boundaries across the bus. The effect is a platform that behaves nominally through acceptance test yet enables covert control, targeted degradation, or delayed failure once on orbit.
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.
EX-0004		Compromise Boot Memory	The attacker manipulates memory and configuration used in the earliest stages of boot so that their code runs before normal protections and integrity checks take hold. Targets include boot ROM vectors, first-stage/second-stage bootloaders, boot configuration words and strap pins, one-time-programmable (OTP) fuses, non-volatile images in flash/EEPROM, and scratch regions copied into RAM during cold start. Techniques range from replacing or patching boot images to flipping configuration bits that alter trust decisions (e.g., image selection, fallback order, watchdog behavior). Faults can be induced deliberately (timed power/clock/EM glitches) or via crafted update/write sequences that leave a partially programmed but executable state. Once resident, the modification can insert early hooks, disable or short-circuit checks, or select downgraded images; destructive variants corrupt the boot path to induce a persistent reset loop or safeing entry (a denial of service). Because boot logic initializes buses, memory maps, and handler tables, even small changes at this stage cascade, shaping how command handlers load, how keys and counters are initialized, and which peripherals are trusted for subsequent execution.
EX-0005		Exploit Hardware/Firmware Corruption	The adversary achieves execution or effect beneath the software stack, in device firmware, programmable logic, or the hardware itself, either by corrupting that layer or by driving it through interfaces that function exactly as designed. Examples include tampering with firmware images or configuration blobs burned into non-volatile memory; targeting MCU/SoC boot ROM fallbacks; editing FPGA bitstreams or partial-reconfiguration frames; leveraging physical phenomena and timing to flip bits or skip checks; or issuing legitimate low-level device, maintenance, and calibration commands that act directly on hardware without passing through high-level command mediation. Because these actions occur below or alongside the operating system and application FSW, traditional endpoint safeguards see normal interfaces while trust anchors are already altered.
	.01	Design Flaws	Threat actors may exploit inherent properties or errata in the hardware/logic design rather than injecting new code. Levers include undocumented or weakly specified behaviors (scan chains, test modes, debug straps), counter/timer rollovers and wraparound, interrupt storms and priority inversions, MMU/TLB corner cases, DMA engines that can write outside intended buffers, and bus arbitration or clock-domain crossing issues that permit stale or reordered writes. RNGs and crypto accelerators with flawed seeding or side-channel leakage can expose secrets or enable predictable authentication values. In programmable logic, vulnerable state machines, insufficient reset paths, and hazardous partial-reconfiguration regions create opportunities to drive the design into privileged or undefined states. Even reliability features can be turned: hardware timers intended for liveness can be paced to starve control loops; ECC policies can be nudged so correction conceals attacker-induced drift. The common thread is using the platform’s own guarantees, timing, priority, persistence, or fault handling, to cause privileged behavior that the software stack accepts as “by design.”
EX-0008		Time Synchronized Execution	Malicious logic is arranged to run at precise times derived from onboard clocks or distributed time sources. The trigger may be absolute or relative. Spacecraft commonly maintain multiple clocks and counters and schedule autonomous sequences against them. An attacker leverages this machinery to ensure effects occur during tactically advantageous windows. Time-based execution reduces exposure, simplifies coordination across assets, and makes reproduction difficult in lab settings that lack the same temporal context.
	.01	Absolute Time Sequences	Execution is keyed to a fixed wall-clock timestamp or epoch, independent of current vehicle state. The implant watches a trusted time source, GNSS-derived time, crosslink-distributed network time, oscillator-disciplined UTC/TAI, or mission elapsed time anchored at activation, and triggers exactly at a programmed date/time. Absolute triggering supports coordinated multi-asset actions and allows long dormancy with a precise activation moment. Variants incorporate calendar logic (e.g., “first visible pass after YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss”) or guard bands to fire only if the clock is within certain tolerances, ensuring the event occurs even with minor drift yet remains rare enough to blend with scheduled operations.
	.02	Relative Time Sequences	Execution is keyed to elapsed time since a reference event. The implant latches a start point, boot, reset, safing entry/exit, receipt of a particular telemetry/command pattern, achievement of sun-pointing, and arms a countdown or set of offsets (“N seconds after event,” “repeat every M cycles”). Relative sequences are resilient to clock discontinuities and mirror how many spacecraft schedule internal activities (e.g., after boot, run calibrations; after acquisition, start downlink). An attacker exploits this to ensure the trigger fires only within specific operational phases and to survive resets that would thwart absolute timestamps: after every reboot, wait for housekeeping steady state, then act; or, after a wheel unload completes, inject an additional command while control laws are in a known configuration.
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.
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-0001		Memory Compromise	The adversary arranges for malicious content to survive resets and mode changes by targeting memories and execution paths that initialize the system. Candidates include boot ROM handoff vectors, first/second-stage loaders, non-volatile images (flash/EEPROM), “golden” fallback partitions, configuration words/fuses, and RAM regions reconstructed at start-up from stored files or tables. Persistence may also ride auto-run mechanisms, init scripts, procedure engines, stored command sequences, or event hooks that execute on boot, safe-mode entry/exit, time triggers, or receipt of specific telemetry/commands. Variants keep the core payload only in RAM but ensure it is reloaded after every restart by patching copy-on-boot routines, altering file catalogs, or modifying table loaders so the same bytes are restored. The common thread is control of where the spacecraft looks for what to run next, so unauthorized logic is reinstated whenever the system resets or transitions modes.
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.
	.01	Hardware Backdoor	Hardware backdoors leverage properties of the physical design to provide durable, low-visibility reentry. Examples include enabled test/scan chains, manufacturing or boot-strap modes invoked by pins or registers, persistent debug interfaces (JTAG/SWD/UART), undocumented device commands, and logic inserted in FPGA/ASIC designs that activates under specific stimuli. Because these mechanisms sit below or beside flight software, they can grant direct access to buses, memories, or peripheral control even when higher layers appear healthy. Triggers may be electrical (pin states, voltage/clock sequences), protocol-level (special patterns on an instrument link), or environmental/temporal (particular temperature ranges, timing offsets). Once on orbit, such pathways are difficult to remove or reconfigure, allowing the attacker to persist by reusing the same physical entry points whenever conditions are met.
	.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.

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-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
SV-SP-5	Hardware failure (i.e., tainted hardware) {ASIC and FPGA focused}

Sample Requirements

SPARTA ID	Requirement	Rationale/Additional Guidance/Notes
SPR-4	The [spacecraft] security implementation shall ensure that information should not be allowed to flow between partitioned applications unless explicitly permitted by the system.{SV-AC-6,SV-MA-3,SV-SP-7}{AC-3(3),AC-3(4),AC-4,AC-4(6),AC-4(21),CA-9,IA-9,SA-8(3),SA-8(18),SA-8(19),SC-2(2),SC-7(29),SC-16,SC-32}	Strict partitioning prevents compromise of one application from cascading into mission-critical subsystems. Many spacecraft attacks exploit flat architectures where subsystems implicitly trust one another. Explicit inter-partition authorization limits lateral movement and privilege escalation. This supports containment and fault isolation under both cyber and fault conditions.
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-24	The [spacecraft] data within partitioned applications shall not be read or modified by other applications/partitions.{SV-AC-6}{AC-3(3),AC-3(4),SA-8(19),SC-2(2),SC-4,SC-6,SC-32}	Application partitions must enforce strict read/write controls to prevent unauthorized state modification. Without this control, malicious code can alter mission parameters or falsify telemetry. Isolation protects integrity of subsystem data and prevents corruption propagation.
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-39	The [spacecraft] shall prevent unauthorized and unintended information transfer via shared system resources.{SV-AC-6}{PM-32,SA-8(2),SA-8(5),SA-8(6),SA-8(19),SC-2(2),SC-4}	Shared buses, memory, or peripherals can become covert channels. Controls must prevent unintended information propagation across shared infrastructure. This mitigates cross-partition leakage and data exfiltration. Shared resources must not undermine domain isolation.
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-232	The [organization] shall conduct a criticality analysis to identify mission critical functions and critical components and reduce the vulnerability of such functions and components through secure system design.{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-4,SV-AV-7,SV-MA-4}{CP-2,CP-2(8),PL-7,PM-11,PM-30(1),RA-3(1),RA-9,SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-8(25),SA-12,SA-14,SA-15(3),SC-7(29),SR-1}	During SCRM, criticality analysis will aid in determining supply chain risk. For mission critical functions/components, extra scrutiny must be applied to ensure supply chain is secured.
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-253	The [organization] shall coordinate penetration testing on mission critical spacecraft components (hardware and/or software).{SV-MA-4}{CA-8,CA-8(1),CP-4(5)}	Not all defects (i.e., buffer overflows, race conditions, and memory leaks) can be discovered statically and require execution of the system. This is where space-centric cyber testbeds (i.e., cyber ranges) are imperative as they provide an environment to maliciously attack components in a controlled environment to discover these undesirable conditions. Technology has improved to where digital twins for spacecraft are achievable, which provides an avenue for cyber testing that was often not performed due to perceived risk to the flight hardware.
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-256	The [organization] shall perform penetration testing/analysis: (1) On potential system elements before accepting the system; (2) As a realistic simulation of the active adversary’s known adversary tactics, techniques, procedures (TTPs), and tools; and (3) Throughout the lifecycle on physical and logical systems, elements, and processes.{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-4,SV-AV-7,SV-SP-11}{CA-8(1),SA-9,SA-11(5),SR-5(2)}	Penetration testing should be performed throughout the lifecycle on physical and logical systems, elements, and processes including: (1) Hardware, software, and firmware development processes; (2) Shipping/handling procedures; (3) Personnel and physical security programs; (4) Configuration management tools/measures to maintain provenance; and (5) Any other programs, processes, or procedures associated with the production/distribution of supply chain elements.
SPR-257	The [organization] shall analyze changes to the spacecraft to determine potential security impacts prior to change implementation.{SV-MA-6,SV-SP-9}{CM-4,CM-3,CM-3(2),CM-3(7),CM-4(2),SA-10}	Changes to spacecraft configuration may introduce unintended vulnerabilities. Pre-implementation impact analysis prevents security regression. Structured review ensures modifications align with risk tolerance. Change control supports mission 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-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-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-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-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-322	The [organization] shall retain at least two previous versions of all spacecraft associated software on the ground with the capability to restore previous version on the spacecraft.{SV-SP-9,SV-SP-4}{CM-2(3),CM-3(7),CM-4(2),SA-10,SA-10(4)}	Maintaining prior software versions enables rapid rollback in the event of faulty or malicious updates. In space systems, recovery options are limited once deployed. Retained versions preserve operational continuity and reduce mission impact. Controlled rollback strengthens resilience against supply chain or update-based compromise.
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-332	The [organization] shall employ [Selection (one or more): independent third-party analysis, Program penetration testing, independent third-party penetration testing] of [Program-defined supply chain elements, processes, and actors] associated with the system, system components, or system services.{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-4,SV-AV-7,SV-SP-11}{SR-6(1)}	Third-party testing identifies weaknesses across suppliers and processes. Independent review strengthens trust in acquisition channels. Broader testing scope reduces systemic risk. Supply chain validation enhances mission security posture.
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-393	The [organization] shall confirm that the operational spacecrafts correspond to the baseline configuration. {SV-SP-9,SV-SP-4}{CM-2,CM-3,CM-3(7),CM-4(2),CM-6,SA-10}	Configuration drift undermines trust and auditability. Confirming alignment ensures deployed assets reflect approved design. Baseline validation supports recovery and compliance. Continuous verification reduces unknown risk.
SPR-408	The [organization] shall produce a plan for the continuous monitoring of security control effectiveness. The plan shall explicitly cover the space platform and link segment telemetry, automated anomaly detection, and SOC correlation of uplink, crosslink, and payload communications.{SV-DCO-1,SV-IT-1,SV-AV-1}{SA-4(8),CP-4(5),PM-31}	Comprehensive coverage ensures both onboard and communication segments are monitored. Telemetry-driven detection strengthens anomaly awareness. SOC correlation integrates space and ground visibility. Structured planning enhances detection capability.
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-484	The [organization] shall employ interactive application security testing within spacecraft simulation or hardware-in-the-loop test benches to observe flight software runtime behavior, capture memory use, API calls, and data flows, and shall identify and report vulnerabilities prior to integration.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-7}{SA-11(9)}	Runtime behavior analysis detects dynamic vulnerabilities. Hardware-in-the-loop testing reveals integration flaws. Early detection reduces costly remediation. Testing strengthens secure development lifecycle.
SPR-485	The [organization] shall require that IAST results are recorded as assessment evidence and shall block promotion of builds with unresolved high-severity findings to the flight baseline.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-3}{SA-11(9)}	Preventing promotion of vulnerable builds protects mission integrity. Enforced gating ensures accountability. Security evidence supports auditability. Quality control strengthens assurance.
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.

Dynamic Testing

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