| SPR-2 |
The [spacecraft] shall ensure that sensitive information can only be accessed by personnel with appropriate roles and an explicit need for such information to perform their duties.{SV-CF-3,SV-AC-4}{AC-3(11),CM-12}
|
Space system sensitive information can include a wide range of candidate material: functional and performance specifications, any ICDs (like radio frequency, ground-to-space, etc.), command and telemetry databases, scripts, simulation and rehearsal results/reports, descriptions of link segment protections subject to disabling/bypassing, failure/anomaly resolution, and any other sensitive information related to architecture, software, and mission operations.
|
| SPR-3 |
The [spacecraft] shall enforce approved authorizations for controlling the flow of information within the platform and between interconnected systems so that information does not leave the platform boundary unless it is encrypted. Flow control shall be implemented in conjunction with protected processing domains, security‑policy filters with fully enumerated formats, and a default‑deny communications baseline.{SV-AC-6}{AC-3(3),AC-3(4),AC-4,AC-4(2),AC-4(6),AC-4(21),CA-3,CA-3(6),CA-3(7),CA-9,IA-9,SA-8(19),SC-8(1),SC-16(3)}
|
Spacecraft operate in constrained and deterministic environments where uncontrolled data flows can enable data exfiltration, cross-domain leakage, or lateral movement between subsystems. Enforcing approved authorizations with enumerated formats and a default-deny posture ensures only explicitly permitted communications occur. Encryption enforcement at platform boundaries prevents unauthorized disclosure of telemetry or state information.
|
| 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-8 |
The [organization] shall ensure that the allocated security safeguards operate in a coordinated and mutually reinforcing manner.{SV-MA-6}{CA-7(5),PL-7,PL-8(1),SA-8(19)}
|
Independent controls that operate in isolation may create security gaps or conflicting behaviors. Coordinated safeguards ensure that encryption, authentication, partitioning, and monitoring functions reinforce each other rather than undermine availability or safety. This reduces bypass risk and improves fault/cyber response integration. Cohesive operation is essential for resilient mission assurance.
|
| 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-28 |
The [spacecraft] shall provide the capability to enter the platform into a known good, operational cyber-safe mode from a tamper-resistant, configuration-controlled (“gold”) image that is authenticated as coming from an acceptable supplier, and has its integrity verified. The [spacecraft] shall refresh only from cryptographically authenticated [organization]-approved sources.{SV-AV-5,SV-AV-6,SV-AV-7}{CP-10(6),CP-12,CP-13,IR-4(3),SA-8(16),SA-8(19),SA-8(21),SA-8(24),SI-13,SI-17}
|
Cyber-safe mode is an operating mode of a spacecraft during which all nonessential systems are shut down and the spacecraft is placed in a known good state using validated software and configuration settings. Within cyber-safe mode authentication and encryption should still be enabled. The spacecraft should be capable of reconstituting firmware and SW functions to preattack levels to allow for the recovery of functional capabilities. This can be performed by self-healing, or the healing can be aided from the ground. However, the spacecraft needs to have the capability to replan, based on available equipment still available after a cyberattack. The goal is for the vehicle to resume full mission operations. If not possible, a reduced level of mission capability should be achieved.
|
| SPR-29 |
The [spacecraft] shall enter cyber-safe mode software/configuration should be stored onboard the spacecraft in memory with hardware-based controls and should not be modifiable.{CP-10(6),CP-13,SA-8(16),SA-8(19),SA-8(21),SA-8(24),SI-17}
|
|
| SPR-30 |
The [spacecraft] shall fail to a known secure state for failures during initialization, and aborts preserving information necessary to return to operations in failure.{SV-AV-5,SV-AV-6,SV-AV-7}{CP-10(6),CP-13,SA-8(16),SA-8(19),SA-8(24),SC-24,SI-13,SI-17}
|
|
| SPR-32 |
The [spacecraft] shall provide or support the capability for recovery and reconstitution to a known state after a disruption, compromise, or failure.{SV-AV-5,SV-AV-6,SV-AV-7}{CP-4(4),CP-10,CP-10(4),CP-10(6),CP-13,IR-4,IR-4(1),SA-8(16),SA-8(19),SA-8(24)}
|
|
| 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-35 |
The [spacecraft] shall perform an orderly, controlled system shut-down to a known cyber-safe state upon receipt of a termination command or condition.{PE-11,PE-11(1),SA-8(16),SA-8(19),SA-8(24),SI-17}
|
|
| SPR-36 |
The [spacecraft] shall operate securely in off-nominal power conditions, including loss of power and spurious power transients.{SV-AV-6,SV-MA-2}{PE-11,PE-11(1),SA-8(16),SA-8(19),SI-13,SI-17}
|
Power anomalies may induce undefined states exploitable by attackers. Cryptographic and security mechanisms must not degrade into insecure configurations during brownout or transient conditions. This mitigates fault-induced bypass attacks. Resilient operation preserves trust chain continuity.
|
| 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-40 |
The [spacecraft] shall only use communication protocols that support encryption within the mission.{SV-AC-7,SV-CF-1,SV-CF-2}{SA-4(9),SA-8(18),SA-8(19),SC-40(4)}
|
Protocols lacking encryption create unavoidable exposure. Selecting encryption-capable protocols ensures confidentiality and integrity can be enforced mission-wide. This reduces risk from protocol downgrade attacks.
|
| 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-42 |
The [spacecraft] flight software shall not be able to tamper with the security policy or its enforcement mechanisms.{SV-AC-6}{SA-8(16),SA-8(19),SC-3,SC-7(13)}
|
Security enforcement must be independent of mission application logic. If FSW can alter policy, adversaries can disable protections post-compromise. This control preserves integrity of access controls and monitoring functions. Separation of enforcement from application reduces systemic risk.
|
| 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-75 |
The [organization] shall define acceptable secure communication protocols available for use within the mission in accordance with applicable federal laws, Executive Orders, directives, policies, regulations, and standards.{SV-AC-7}{SA-4(9)}
|
The secure communication protocol should include "strong" authenticated encryption characteristics.
|
| SPR-76 |
The [spacecraft] shall only use [organization]-defined communication protocols within the mission.{SV-AC-7}{SA-4(9)}
|
Restricting protocols prevents introduction of undocumented or insecure communication paths. Unapproved protocols may lack encryption, replay protection, or monitoring integration. Standardization reduces attack surface and simplifies validation. Controlled protocol selection strengthens supply chain and integration assurance.
|
| 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-79 |
The [spacecraft] and all ground support systems (including those during development) shall be capable of detecting unauthorized hardware components/connections.{SV-SP-5,SV-SP-4}{CM-7(9)}
|
Unauthorized hardware introduces supply chain risk, covert backdoors, or malicious implants. Detection across development and operational environments prevents latent compromise from propagating to flight systems. Hardware verification supports trusted system baselines. Physical-layer assurance complements software integrity controls.
|
| SPR-80 |
The [spacecraft] shall execute procedures for ensuring that security-relevant hardware, software, and firmware updates uploaded are exactly as specified by the gold copies. {SV-SP-9,SV-IT-3,SV-SP-3}{CM-3(5),SA-8(8),SA-8(21),SA-8(31),SA-10(3),SA-10(4),SA-10(6),SI-7(10),SI-7(12)}
|
Ensuring updates match approved gold copies prevents insertion of malicious or altered firmware/software. Compromise during update processes is a high-impact attack vector. Validation protects the trusted computing baseline. This supports recovery and reconstitution integrity.
|
| 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-82 |
The [spacecraft] boot firmware shall validate the boot loader, boot configuration file, and operating system image, in that order, against their respective signatures.{SV-IT-3}{SA-8(10),SA-8(11),SA-8(12),SI-7(9),SI-7(10)}
|
A signature is ~770 bits long. No requirement is imposed on the storage location of signatures.
|
| SPR-83 |
The [spacecraft] boot firmware shall verify a trust chain that extends through the hardware root of trust, boot loader, boot configuration file, and operating system image, in that order.{SV-IT-3}{SA-8(10),SA-8(11),SA-8(12),SI-7(9),SI-7(10)}
|
These three items were chosen because they’re intended to be static values (once properly set up) but are in volatile storage. Also, the Boot ROM can’t be modified, so there’s no reason to check a signature.
|
| SPR-84 |
The [spacecraft] trusted boot/RoT computing module shall be implemented on radiation tolerant burn-in (non-programmable) equipment.{SV-IT-3,SV-SP-5}{SA-8(10),SA-8(11),SA-8(12),SI-7(9),SI-7(10)}
|
Root of Trust must be anchored in immutable hardware to prevent software-level compromise. Radiation-tolerant burn-in hardware ensures stability in space environments. Non-programmable components prevent adversarial modification of trust anchors. Hardware-based trust strengthens system-wide assurance.
|
| SPR-85 |
The [spacecraft] trusted boot/RoT shall be a separate compute engine controlling the trusted computing platform cryptographic processor.{SV-IT-3,SV-SP-7}{SA-8(10),SA-8(11),SA-8(12),SI-7(9),SI-7(10)}
|
Separating the trust engine from general-purpose compute reduces attack surface. Independent control over cryptographic processors prevents compromised flight software from influencing trust validation. This architectural separation preserves chain-of-trust integrity. Isolation enhances resilience against firmware-level threats.
|
| SPR-86 |
The [spacecraft] shall perform attestation at each stage of startup and ensure overall trusted boot regime (i.e., root of trust).{SV-IT-3}{SA-8(10),SA-8(11),SA-8(12),SI-7(9),SI-7(10),SI-7(17)}
|
It is important for the computing module to be able to access a set of functions and commands that it trusts; that is, that it knows to be true. This concept is referred to as root of trust (RoT) and should be included in the spacecraft design. With RoT, a device can always be trusted to operate as expected. RoT functions, such as verifying the device’s own code and configuration, must be implemented in secure hardware (i.e., field programmable gate arrays). By checking the security of each stage of power-up, RoT devices form the first link in a chain of trust that protects the spacecraft
|
| SPR-87 |
The [spacecraft] shall be configured to provide only essential capabilities.{SV-SP-7,SV-SP-1}{CM-6,CM-7,SA-8(2),SA-8(7),SA-8(13),SA-8(23),SA-8(26),SA-15(5)}
|
Minimizing enabled functionality reduces attack surface and complexity. Unused services create unnecessary exposure. Essential-only configuration aligns with least functionality principles. This simplifies validation and reduces exploit vectors.
|
| 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-89 |
The [spacecraft] shall implement the hardware, firmware, and software anti-tamper mechanisms identified in the Anti-Tamper Plan.{SV-SP-5,SV-SP-4}{SR-9(1),SR-10}
|
Anti-tamper mechanisms deter reverse engineering, unauthorized modification, and physical compromise. Integrated hardware, firmware, and software protections raise adversary cost. Defined Anti-Tamper Plans ensure consistent implementation across lifecycle phases. Protection must address both physical and cyber attack vectors.
|
| SPR-90 |
The [organization] shall define and document the transitional state or security-relevant events when the spacecraft will perform integrity checks on software, firmware, and information.{SV-IT-2}{SA-8(21),SI-7(1),SI-7(10),SR-4(4)}
|
Integrity checks must be executed at well-defined lifecycle transitions (e.g., boot, mode change, update, anomaly). Clear documentation prevents gaps in validation coverage. Transitional state definitions ensure consistent enforcement across mission phases. This supports predictable and auditable trust verification.
|
| 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-227 |
The [organization] shall identify all locations (including ground and contractor systems) that store or process sensitive system information.{SV-CF-3,SV-SP-4,SV-SP-10}{AC-3(11),CM-12}
|
Space system sensitive information can include a wide range of candidate material: functional and performance specifications, any ICDs (like radio frequency, ground-to-space, etc.), command and telemetry databases, scripts, simulation and rehearsal results/reports, descriptions of link segment protections subject to disabling/bypassing, failure/anomaly resolution, and any other sensitive information related to architecture, software, and mission operations.
|
| SPR-228 |
The [organization] shall identify sensitive mission data (e.g.CPI) and document the specific on-board components on which the information is processed and stored.{SV-MA-4,SV-CF-3}{AC-3(11),CM-12}
|
Space system sensitive information can include a wide range of candidate material: functional and performance specifications, any ICDs (like radio frequency, ground-to-space, etc.), command and telemetry databases, scripts, simulation and rehearsal results/reports, descriptions of link segment protections subject to disabling/bypassing, failure/anomaly resolution, and any other sensitive information related to architecture, software, and mission operations.
|
| 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-231 |
The [organization] shall distribute documentation to only personnel with defined roles and a need to know.{SV-CF-3,SV-AV-5}{CM-12,CP-2,SA-5,SA-10}
|
Least privilege and need to know should be employed with the protection of all documentation. Documentation can contain sensitive information that can aid in vulnerability discovery, detection, and exploitation. For example, command dictionaries for ground and space systems should be handles with extreme care. Additionally, design documents for missions contain many key elements that if compromised could aid in an attacker successfully exploiting the system.
|
| 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-243 |
The [organization] shall protect documentation and Essential Elements of Information (EEI) as required, in accordance with the risk management strategy.{SV-CF-3,SV-AV-5}{SA-5}
|
Essential Elements of Information (EEI):
|
| SPR-244 |
The [organization] shall define the secure communication protocols to be used within the mission in accordance with applicable federal laws, Executive Orders, directives, policies, regulations, and standards.{SV-AC-7,SV-CF-1}{PL-7,RA-5(4),SA-4(9),SA-8(18),SA-8(19),SC-8(1),SC-16(3),SC-40(4),SI-12}
|
Standardized secure protocols reduce interoperability risk. Alignment with federal standards ensures validated cryptography. Defined protocols prevent ad hoc insecure implementations. Governance strengthens communication assurance.
|
| 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-246 |
The [organization] shall ensure that all Electrical, Electronic, Electro-mechanical & Electro-optical (EEEE) and mechanical piece parts procured from the Original Component Manufacturer (OCM) or their authorized distribution network.{SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-12,SA-12(1),SC-16(1),SR-1,SR-5}
|
|
| SPR-248 |
The [organization] shall employ Operations Security (OPSEC) safeguards to protect supply chain-related information for the system, system components, or system services. {CP-2(8),PM-30,SA-12(9),SC-38,SR-7}
|
Supply chain information can reveal vulnerabilities. OPSEC reduces adversary intelligence gathering. Controlled disclosure minimizes targeting risk. Information discipline strengthens strategic defense.
|
| SPR-249 |
The [organization] shall employ [Program-defined Operations Security (OPSEC) safeguards] to protect supply chain-related information for the system, system components, or system services.{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-4,SV-AV-7,SV-SP-11}{CP-2(8),PM-30,SA-12(9),SC-38,SR-7}
|
OPSEC safeguards may include: (1) Limiting the disclosure of information needed to design, develop, test, produce, deliver, and support the element for example, supplier identities, supplier processes, potential suppliers, security requirements, design specifications, testing and evaluation result, and system/component configurations, including the use of direct shipping, blind buys, etc.; (2) Extending supply chain awareness, education, and training for suppliers, intermediate users, and end users; (3) Extending the range of OPSEC tactics, techniques, and procedures to potential suppliers, contracted suppliers, or sub-prime contractor tier of suppliers; and (4) Using centralized support and maintenance services to minimize direct interactions between end users and original suppliers.
|
| 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-258 |
The [organization] shall test the contingency plan, with special consideration for space operations, to determine the effectiveness of the plan and readiness to execute the plan.{SV-MA-5}{CP-4}
|
Contingency plans must be validated under realistic mission conditions. Testing confirms feasibility during communication latency or constrained power states. Exercises reveal gaps in readiness. Preparedness reduces recovery time during incidents.
|
| SPR-259 |
The [organization] shall develop an incident response and forensics plan that covers the spacecrafts.{SV-MA-5}{CP-2,IR-1,IR-3,IR-3(2),IR-4(12),IR-4(13),IR-8,SA-15(10),SI-4(24)}
|
A structured response plan enables coordinated containment and recovery. Forensics planning ensures evidence preservation. Defined procedures reduce confusion during crisis. Incident readiness enhances resilience.
|
| SPR-260 |
The [organization] shall test the incident response capabilities of the spacecraft to determine the effectiveness of the plan and readiness to execute the plan.{SV-MA-5}{IR-3}
|
Practical exercises validate plan effectiveness. Testing ensures spacecraft systems can support containment, telemetry capture, and recovery actions. Simulation reduces uncertainty during real events. Readiness must be demonstrated, not assumed.
|
| SPR-261 |
The [organization] shall coordinate testing of the incident response plan with organizational elements responsible for related plans.{SV-MA-5}{IR-3(2)}
|
Cyber incidents span mission, enterprise, and supplier boundaries. Coordinated exercises ensure interoperability and shared understanding. Integrated testing reduces response friction. Cross-organizational alignment improves containment.
|
| SPR-262 |
The [organization] includes security awareness training on recognizing and reporting potential indicators of insider threat.{SV-AC-4}{AT-2(2),IR-4(6),IR-6,IR-6(2),PM-16}
|
Authorized users present significant risk vectors. Awareness training improves detection of anomalous behavior. Early reporting reduces insider dwell time. Human vigilance complements technical controls.
|
| SPR-263 |
The [organization] shall provide training to its personnel on how to identify and respond to malicious code indicators to include but not limited to indicators of potentially malicious code in flight software, indicators from development machine’s anti-virus/anti-malware software of potential malicious code, and to recognize suspicious communications and anomalous behavior in [organization] information systems.{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-10}{AT-3(4),IR-6,IR-6(2),SI-4(24)}
|
Personnel must recognize signs of compromised flight or development systems. Early detection prevents propagation into mission assets. Training strengthens defense across lifecycle stages. Awareness reduces supply chain exposure.
|
| SPR-264 |
The [organization] shall report counterfeit information system components to [organization] officials. {SV-SP-4}{IR-6,IR-6(2),PM-30,SA-19,SR-11}
|
Counterfeit components may contain malicious implants or reliability risks. Reporting ensures centralized tracking and mitigation. Early notification prevents systemic exposure. Hardware integrity underpins 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-268 |
The [organization] shall share information obtained from the vulnerability scanning process and security control assessments with [Program-defined personnel or roles] to help eliminate similar vulnerabilities in other systems (i.e., systemic weaknesses or deficiencies).{SV-SP-1}{RA-5}
|
Sharing scan results prevents repeated weaknesses across systems. Enterprise/Mission visibility reduces systemic vulnerabilities. Collaborative learning enhances resilience. Cross-program transparency strengthens collective defense.
|
| SPR-269 |
The [organization] shall ensure that the vulnerability scanning tools (e.g., static analysis and/or component analysis tools) used include the capability to readily update the list of potential information system vulnerabilities to be scanned.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{RA-5,RA-5(1),RA-5(3),SI-3}
|
Threat landscapes evolve rapidly. Regular tool updates ensure detection coverage remains current. Outdated signatures create blind spots. Continuous improvement sustains effectiveness.
|
| SPR-270 |
The [organization] shall perform vulnerability analysis and risk assessment of all systems and software. The analysis shall include results from hardware‑in‑the‑loop vulnerability scanning of flight software, firmware, and link‑segment interfaces.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{RA-5,RA-5(3),SA-15(7),SI-3}
|
Integrated hardware-in-the-loop testing identifies operationally relevant weaknesses. Combined software, firmware, and interface scanning provides holistic coverage. Risk assessment ensures mitigation aligns with mission priorities. End-to-end analysis strengthens assurance.
|
| SPR-271 |
The [organization] shall ensure that vulnerability scanning tools and techniques are employed that facilitate interoperability among tools and automate parts of the vulnerability management process by using standards for: (1) Enumerating platforms, custom software flaws, and improper configurations; (2) Formatting checklists and test procedures; and (3) Measuring vulnerability impact. Scanning shall cover flight software, firmware, and link‑segment interfaces in hardware‑in‑the‑loop environments.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{RA-5,RA-5(3),SI-3}
|
Component/Origin scanning looks for open-source libraries/software that may be included into the baseline and looks for known vulnerabilities and open-source license violations.
|
| SPR-272 |
The [organization] shall perform static binary analysis of all firmware that is utilized on the spacecraft.{SV-SP-7,SV-SP-11}{RA-5,SA-10,SA-11,SI-7(10)}
|
Many commercial products/parts are utilized within the system and should be analyzed for security weaknesses. Blindly accepting the firmware is free of weakness is unacceptable for high assurance missions. The intent is to not blindly accept firmware from unknown sources and assume it is secure. This is meant to apply to firmware the vendors are not developing internally. In-house developed firmware should be going through the vendor's own testing program and have high assurance it is secure. When utilizing firmware from other sources, "expecting" does not meet this requirement. Each supplier needs to provide evidence to support that claim that their firmware they are getting is genuine and secure.
|
| SPR-273 |
The [organization] shall perform static source code analysis for all available source code looking for [[organization]-defined Top CWE List] weaknesses using complimentary set of static code analysis tools (i.e.more than one).{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{RA-5,SA-11(1),SA-15(7)}
|
Static analysis detects coding weaknesses before execution. Using multiple tools increases detection coverage. Alignment with defined CWE priorities ensures focus on high-risk flaws. Early detection reduces downstream remediation cost.
|
| SPR-274 |
The [organization] shall analyze vulnerability/weakness scan reports and results from security control assessments.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{RA-5,SI-3}
|
Scan results require expert interpretation to avoid false positives or overlooked risks. Structured analysis ensures meaningful remediation. Correlating findings with mission context refines prioritization. Review strengthens governance.
|
| SPR-275 |
The [organization] shall have automated means to evaluate adherence to coding standards.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-15,SA-15(7),RA-5}
|
Manual review cannot scale across the code base; you must have a way to scale in order to confirm your coding standards are being met. The intent is for automated means to ensure code adheres to a coding standard.
|
| SPR-276 |
The [organization] shall perform component analysis (a.k.a.origin analysis) for developed or acquired software.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-15(7),RA-5}
|
|
| SPR-277 |
In coordination with [organization], the [organization] shall prioritize and remediate flaws identified during security testing/evaluation.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-3}{CA-2,CA-5,SA-11,SI-3,SI-3(10)}
|
Timely remediation reduces exploitation window. Coordination ensures mission continuity during patching. Documented prioritization demonstrates due diligence. Structured response enhances accountability.
|
| SPR-278 |
The [organization] shall correct flaws identified during security testing/evaluation.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-11}
|
Flaws that impact the mission objectives should be prioritized.
|
| SPR-279 |
The [organization] shall perform [Selection (one or more): unit; integration; system; regression] testing/evaluation at [Program-defined depth and coverage].{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-11}
|
The depth needs to include functional testing as well as negative/abuse testing.
|
| SPR-280 |
The [organization] shall require the developer of the system, system component, or system service to deliver the system, component, or service with [Program-defined security configurations] implemented.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-9}{SA-4(5)}
|
For the spacecraft FSW, the defined security configuration could include to ensure the software does not contain a pre-defined list of Common Weakness Enumerations (CWEs)and/or CAT I/II Application STIGs.
|
| SPR-282 |
The [organization] shall use all-source intelligence analysis of suppliers and potential suppliers of the information system, system components, or system services to inform engineering, acquisition, and risk management decisions.{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-4,SV-AV-7,SV-SP-11}{PM-16,PM-30,RA-2,RA-3(1),RA-3(2),RA-7,SA-9,SA-12(8),SR-5(2)}
|
* The Program should also consider sub suppliers and potential sub suppliers.
* All-source intelligence of suppliers that the organization may use includes: (1) Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Threat Assessment Center (TAC), the enterprise focal point for supplier threat assessments for the DOD acquisition community risks; (2) Other U.S. Government resources including: (a) Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) – Database where government and industry can record issues with suppliers, including counterfeits; and (b) System for Award Management (SAM) – Database of companies that are barred from doing business with the US Government.
|
| SPR-283 |
The [organization] shall request threat analysis of suppliers of critical components and manage access to and control of threat analysis products containing U.S.person information.{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-4,SV-SP-11}{PM-16,PM-30(1),RA-3(1),SA-9,SA-12,SR-1}
|
The intent of this requirement is to address supply chain concerns on hardware and software vendors. Not required for trusted suppliers accredited to the Defense Microelectronic Activity (DMEA). If the Program intends to use a supplier not accredited by DMEA, the government customer should be notified as soon as possible. If the Program has internal processes to vet suppliers, it may meet this requirement. All software used and its origins must be included in the SBOM and be subjected to internal and Government vulnerability scans.
|
| 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-292 |
The [organization] shall ensure that role-based security-related training is provided to personnel with assigned security roles and responsibilities: (i) before authorizing access to the system or performing assigned duties; (ii) when required by system changes; and (iii) at least annually thereafter.{SV-AC-4}{AT-3,CP-2}
|
Personnel must understand role-specific responsibilities. Tailored training reduces misuse. Continuous reinforcement maintains awareness. Human factors are central to defense.
|
| SPR-293 |
The [organization] shall employ techniques to limit harm from potential adversaries identifying and targeting the [organization]s supply chain.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-5,SV-SP-6}{CP-2,PM-30,SA-9,SA-12(5),SC-38,SR-3,SR-3(1),SR-3(2),SR-5(2)}
|
Adversaries often exploit supplier relationships. Protective measures reduce reconnaissance and manipulation. Supply chain resilience strengthens mission integrity. Proactive defense mitigates systemic exposure.
|
| SPR-294 |
The [organization] shall use threat modeling and vulnerability analysis to inform the current development process using analysis from similar systems, components, or services where applicable.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-11(2),SA-15(8)}
|
|
| 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-296 |
The [organization] shall conduct an Attack Surface Analysis and reduce attack surfaces to a level that presents a low level of compromise by an attacker.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-11(6),SA-15(5)}
|
Reducing exposed interfaces lowers exploitation probability. Quantified surface reduction strengthens resilience. Structured assessment aligns design with mission risk tolerance. Minimization enhances defensive posture.
|
| SPR-297 |
The [organization] shall require the developer to conduct an attack surface analysis on the spacecraft architecture to identify and reduce attack surfaces to the lowest possible level that still permits the system to meet performance requirements/mission objectives.{SV-MA-6,SV-SP-1}{SA-11(6),SA-15(5)}
|
Embedding surface reduction into architecture strengthens foundational security. Early analysis prevents costly retrofits. Developer accountability ensures security by design. Integrated evaluation improves mission readiness.
|
| SPR-298 |
The [organization] shall require the developer to use threat modeling, attack surface analysis, and vulnerability analysis to inform the current development process using analysis from similar systems, components, or services where applicable.{SV-MA-6,SV-SP-1}{SA-15(8)}
|
Threat modeling anticipates adversary tactics. Early design adaptation reduces vulnerability exposure. Learning from similar systems improves efficiency. Proactive analysis reduces downstream risk.
|
| 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-303 |
The [organization] shall protect the security plan from unauthorized disclosure and modification.{SV-MA-6}{AC-3,PL-2,PL-7}
|
Exposure of architecture details increases adversary advantage. Protecting documentation reduces reconnaissance risk. Controlled access ensures integrity. Governance must secure sensitive planning artifacts.
|
| SPR-304 |
The [organization] shall maintain a list of suppliers and potential suppliers used, and the products that they supply to include software.{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-4,SV-SP-11}{CM-10,PL-8(2),PM-30,SA-8(9),SA-8(11)}
|
Ideally you have diversification with suppliers
|
| SPR-305 |
The [organization] shall develop and implement anti-counterfeit policy and procedures designed to detect and prevent counterfeit components from entering the information system, including support tamper resistance and provide a level of protection against the introduction of malicious code or hardware.{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-4,SV-AV-7,SV-SP-11}{CM-3(8),CM-7(9),PM-30,SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-9,SA-10(3),SA-19,SC-51,SR-4(3),SR-4(4),SR-5(2),SR-11}
|
Counterfeit hardware may embed malicious implants. Formal policies reduce infiltration risk. Supplier verification strengthens trust. Hardware authenticity is foundational to cybersecurity.
|
| SPR-306 |
The [organization] shall conduct a supplier review prior to entering into a contractual agreement with a sub [organization] to acquire systems, system components, or system services.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-6}{PM-30,PM-30(1),RA-3(1),SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-9,SA-12(2),SR-5(2),SR-6}
|
Pre-contract review ensures vendor security posture. Due diligence reduces third-party risk exposure. Structured evaluation strengthens procurement governance. Supplier trust must be verified.
|
| SPR-307 |
The [organization] shall maintain documentation tracing the strategies, tools, and methods implemented to mitigate supply chain risk .{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-4,SV-AV-7}{PM-30,RA-3(1),SA-12(1),SR-5}
|
Examples include: (1) Transferring a portion of the risk to the developer or supplier through the use of contract language and incentives; (2) Using contract language that requires the implementation of SCRM throughout the system lifecycle in applicable contracts and other acquisition and assistance instruments (grants, cooperative agreements, Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), and other transactions). Within the DOD some examples include: (a) Language outlined in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook section 13.13. Contracting; (b) Language requiring the use of protected mechanisms to deliver elements and data about elements, processes, and delivery mechanisms; (c) Language that articulates that requirements flow down supply chain tiers to sub-prime suppliers. (3) Incentives for suppliers that: (a) Implement required security safeguards and SCRM best practices; (b) Promote transparency into their organizational processes and security practices; (c) Provide additional vetting of the processes and security practices of subordinate suppliers, critical information system components, and services; and (d) Implement contract to reduce SC risk down the contract stack. (4) Gaining insight into supplier security practices; (5) Using contract language and incentives to enable more robust risk management later in the lifecycle; (6) Using a centralized intermediary or “Blind Buy” approaches to acquire element(s) to hide actual usage locations from an untrustworthy supplier or adversary;
|
| 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-309 |
The [organization] shall identify the key system components or capabilities that require isolation through physical or logical means.{SV-AC-6}{AC-3,SC-3,SC-7(13),SC-28(3),SC-32,SC-32(1)}
|
Fault management and security management capabilities would be classified as mission critical and likely need separated. Additionally, capabilities like TT&C, C&DH, GNC might need separated as well.
|
| SPR-310 |
The [organization] shall use a certified environment to develop, code and test executable software (firmware or bit-stream) that will be programmed into a one-time programmable FPGA or be programmed into non-volatile memory (NVRAM) that the FPGA executes.{SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-12,SA-12(1),SC-51,SI-7(10),SR-1,SR-5}
|
|
| SPR-311 |
The [organization] shall ensure that all ASICs designed, developed, manufactured, packaged, and tested by suppliers with a Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) Trust accreditation.{spacecraft-SP-5} {SV-SP-5}{SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-12,SA-12(1),SR-1,SR-5}
|
Trusted microelectronics reduce hardware supply chain risk. DMEA accreditation strengthens assurance. Hardware-level compromise prevention protects mission integrity. Secure fabrication underpins secure systems.
|
| SPR-312 |
If using the Government Microelectronics Assessment for Trust (GOMAT) framework outright, to perform ASIC and FPGA threat/vulnerability risk assessment, the following requirements would apply: {SV-SP-5}{SR-1,SR-5}
|
• 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-313 |
The [organization] shall develop a plan for managing supply chain risks associated with the research and development, design, manufacturing, acquisition, delivery, integration, operations and maintenance, and disposal of organization-defined systems, system components, or system services.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-5,SV-SP-6}{SR-2}
|
Structured SCRM planning identifies lifecycle risks. Comprehensive coverage ensures holistic oversight. Risk planning mitigates systemic exposure. Governance extends beyond deployment.
|
| SPR-314 |
The [organization] shall protect the supply chain risk management plan from unauthorized disclosure and modification.{SV-SP-4}{SR-2}
|
Disclosure of SCRM strategy may expose defensive weaknesses. Controlled access preserves operational advantage. Plan integrity prevents tampering. Governance artifacts must be secured.
|
| SPR-315 |
The [organization] shall review and update the supply chain risk management plan as required, to address threats, organizational, or environmental changes.{SV-SP-4}{SR-2}
|
Threat landscapes evolve rapidly. Periodic updates maintain relevance. Adaptive management strengthens resilience. Continuous improvement is essential.
|
| SPR-316 |
The [organization] shall establish a supply chain risk management team to lead and support supply chain risk management activities.{SV-SP-4}{SR-2(1)}
|
Dedicated oversight ensures coordinated supply chain defense. Defined roles improve accountability. Central leadership streamlines mitigation efforts. Organizational focus strengthens resilience.
|
| SPR-317 |
The [organization] shall employ [organization]-defined techniques to limit harm from potential adversaries identifying and targeting the Program supply chain.{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-4,SV-AV-7,SV-SP-11}{SR-3(2),SC-38}
|
Examples of security safeguards that the organization should consider implementing to limit the harm from potential adversaries targeting the organizational supply chain, are: (1) Using trusted physical delivery mechanisms that do not permit access to the element during delivery (ship via a protected carrier, use cleared/official couriers, or a diplomatic pouch); (2) Using trusted electronic delivery of products and services (require downloading from approved, verification-enhanced sites); (3) Avoiding the purchase of custom configurations, where feasible; (4) Using procurement carve outs (i.e., exclusions to commitments or obligations), where feasible; (5) Using defensive design approaches; (6) Employing system OPSEC principles; (7) Employing a diverse set of suppliers; (8) Employing approved vendor lists with standing reputations in industry; (9) Using a centralized intermediary and “Blind Buy” approaches to acquire element(s) to hide actual usage locations from an untrustworthy supplier or adversary Employing inventory management policies and processes; (10) Using flexible agreements during each acquisition and procurement phase so that it is possible to meet emerging needs or requirements to address supply chain risk without requiring complete revision or re-competition of an acquisition or procurement; (11) Using international, national, commercial or government standards to increase potential supply base; (12) Limiting the disclosure of information that can become publicly available; and (13) Minimizing the time between purchase decisions and required delivery.
|
| SPR-318 |
The [organization] shall ensure that the controls included in prime contracts are also included in the contracts of subcontractors.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-6}{SR-3(3)}
|
Security gaps in subcontractors create systemic vulnerabilities. Flow-down requirements enforce consistent standards. Contractual alignment strengthens supply chain assurance. Uniform governance reduces weak links.
|
| SPR-319 |
The [organization] shall ensure adequate supplies of critical system components.{SV-AV-7}{SR-5(1)}
|
Examples include: using multiple suppliers throughout the supply chain for critical components, stockpiling spare components to ensure operation during mission-critical times, and the identification of functionally identical or similar components that may be used, if necessary.
|
| SPR-320 |
The [organization] shall develop and document program-specific configuration management policies and procedures for the hardware and software for the spacecraft. {SV-SP-9,SV-MA-6}{CM-1,CM-3,CM-5(6),SA-10,SA-10(3)}
|
Clear configuration governance prevents unauthorized modification. Policy-backed processes ensure consistency. Lifecycle control supports traceability. Managed change reduces mission risk.
|
| SPR-321 |
The [organization] shall develop and document spacecraft integrity policies covering both hardware and software. {SV-SP-5,SV-IT-3}{CM-5(6),SA-10(3),SI-1,SI-7(12)}
|
Integrity policies define expectations for hardware and software protection. Formalized governance ensures consistent enforcement. Clear standards reduce ambiguity. Integrity underpins mission trustworthiness.
|
| 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-324 |
The [organization] shall inspect system components periodically during development to detect tampering (in accordance with the Anti-Tamper Plan).{SV-SP-5,SV-SP-4}{SR-10}
|
Development environments are prime targets for hardware or firmware manipulation. Regular inspection supports early detection of unauthorized modification. Alignment with the Anti-Tamper Plan ensures structured verification. Early detection prevents compromised components from reaching flight configuration.
|
| SPR-325 |
The [organization] shall develop and implement anti-counterfeit policy and procedures, in coordination with the [CIO], that is demonstrably consistent with the anti-counterfeit policy defined by the Program office.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-11}{SR-11}
|
Consistent anti-counterfeit policy ensures supply chain integrity across organizational boundaries. Alignment with Program office guidance prevents inconsistent enforcement. Counterfeit components introduce reliability and malicious implant risks. Formal policy strengthens procurement assurance.
|
| SPR-326 |
The [organization] shall employ technical means to determine if system components are genuine or have been altered.{SV-SP-5,SV-SP-4}{SR-11(3)}
|
Organizations may leverage supplier and contractor processes for validating that a system or component is genuine and has not been altered and for replacing a suspect system or component.
|
| SPR-327 |
The [organization] shall document, monitor, and maintain valid provenance of critical system components and associated data in accordance with the Supply Chain Risk Management Plan.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-5}{SR-4,SR-4(1),SR-4(2)}
|
Traceable provenance reduces supply chain opacity and hidden dependency risk. Documentation of origin enables vulnerability tracking and recall response. Monitoring component lineage strengthens trust in deployed hardware and software. Transparency enhances lifecycle accountability.
|
| SPR-328 |
The [organization] shall ensure any update to on-board software, memory, or stored procedures has met high assurance standards before execution. {SV-SP-9,SV-SP-4}{AC-3(2),CM-3,SA-8(8),SA-8(31),SA-10(2),SR-4(4)}
|
On-orbit updates carry significant risk if not validated. High assurance standards prevent unauthorized or corrupted uploads from executing. Structured validation protects system integrity. Update governance reduces mission-ending configuration errors.
|
| 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-330 |
The [organization] shall employ the [organization]-defined approaches for the purchase of the system, system components, or system services from suppliers.{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-4,SV-AV-7,SV-SP-11}{SR-5}
|
This could include tailored acquisition strategies, contract tools, and procurement methods.
|
| 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-333 |
The [organization] shall develop an Anti-Tamper Plan in accordance with DoD directives/instructions on Anti-Tamper guidance for the system, system component, or system service.{SV-SP-5}{SR-9}
|
Structured anti-tamper planning addresses hardware and firmware manipulation risks. Alignment with DoD guidance ensures consistent implementation. Early planning integrates tamper resistance into design. Proactive measures deter hardware exploitation.
|
| SPR-334 |
The [organization] shall coordinate the Anti-Tamper Plan with the appropriate organizational entities to ensure correct implementation of tamper protection mechanisms throughout the system lifecycle.{SV-SP-5}{SR-9,SR-9(1)}
|
Effective anti-tamper requires cross-functional coordination. Alignment prevents gaps between design, manufacturing, and integration. Lifecycle oversight ensures sustained protection. Coordination strengthens enforcement consistency.
|
| SPR-335 |
The [organization] shall document the spacecraft's security architecture, and how it is established within and is an integrated part of the Program's mission security architecture.{SV-MA-6}{SA-17}
|
|
| SPR-336 |
The [organization] (and Prime Contractor) shall conduct a supplier review prior to entering into a contractual agreement with a contractor (or sub-contractor) to acquire systems, system components, or system services.{SV-SP-3,SV-SP-4,SV-AV-7,SV-SP-11}{SR-6}
|
|
| 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-397 |
The [organization] shall create prioritized list of software weakness classes (e.g., Common Weakness Enumerations) to be used during static code analysis for prioritization of static analysis results.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-2,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-11(1),SA-15(7)}
|
The prioritized list of CWEs should be created considering operational environment, attack surface, etc. Results from the threat modeling and attack surface analysis should be used as inputs into the CWE prioritization process. There is also a CWSS (https://cwe.mitre.org/cwss/cwss_v1.0.1.html) process that can be used to prioritize CWEs. The prioritized list of CWEs can help with tools selection as well as you select tools based on their ability to detect certain high priority CWEs.
|
| SPR-398 |
The [organization] shall perform a manual code review of all flight code.{SV-SP-1,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-6,SV-SP-7,SV-SP-9,SV-SP-11}{SA-11(4)}
|
Flight code governs mission-critical behavior. Manual review detects subtle logic flaws missed by automation. Human expertise enhances safety assurance. Defense-in-depth requires layered validation.
|
| 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-438 |
Any EEEE or mechanical piece parts that cannot be procured from the OCM or their authorized distribution network shall be approved and the government program office notified to prevent and detect counterfeit and fraudulent parts and materials.{SV-SP-5}{SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-12,SA-12(1),SR-1,SR-5}
|
The Program, working with the contractors, shall identify which ASICs/FPGAs perform or execute an integral part of mission critical functions and if the supplier is accredited “Trusted” by DMEA. If the contractor is not accredited by DMEA, then the Program may apply various of the below ASIC/FPGA assurance requirements to the contractor, and the Program may need to perform a risk assessment of the contractor’s design environment.
|
| SPR-439 |
For ASICs that are designed, developed, manufactured, packaged, or tested by a supplier that is not DMEA accredited, the ASIC development shall undergo a threat/vulnerability risk assessment. 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 ASIC.{SV-SP-5}{SA-8(9),SA-8(11),SA-8(21),SA-12,SA-12(1),SR-1,SR-4(4),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-440 |
Any EEEE or mechanical piece parts that cannot be procured from the OCM or their authorized franchised distribution network shall be approved by the [organization]’s Parts, Materials and Processes Control Board (PMPCB) as well as the government program office to prevent and detect counterfeit and fraudulent parts and materials.{SV-SP-5}{SR-1,SR-5}
|
The Program, working with the contractors, shall identify which ASICs/FPGAs perform or execute an integral part of mission critical functions and if the supplier is accredited “Trusted” by DMEA. If the contractor is not accredited by DMEA, then the Program may apply various of the below ASIC/FPGA assurance requirements to the contractor, and the Program may need to perform a risk assessment of the contractor’s design environment.
|
| SPR-441 |
For ASICs that are designed, developed, manufactured, packaged, or tested by a supplier that is NOT DMEA accredited Trusted, the ASIC development shall undergo a threat/vulnerability risk assessment.The assessment shall use Aerospace security guidance and requirements tailored from TOR-2019-00506 Vol.2, and TOR-2019-02543 ASIC and FPGA Risk Assessment Process and Checklist.Based on the results of the risk assessment, the Program may require the developer to implement protective measures or other processes to ensure the integrity of the ASIC.{SV-SP-5}{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-442 |
For FPGA pre-silicon artifacts that are developed, coded, and tested by a developer that is NOT DMEA accredited Trusted, the contractor/developer shall be subjected to a development environment and pre-silicon artifacts risk assessment by the Program.The assessment shall use Aerospace security guidance and requirements in TOR-2019-00506 Vol.2, and TOR-2019-02543 ASIC and FPGA Risk Assessment Process and Checklist.Based on the results of the risk assessment, the Program may require the developer to implement protective measures or other processes to ensure the integrity of the FPGA pre-silicon artifacts.{SV-SP-5}{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-443 |
The [organization] shall ensure that the contractors/developers have all ASICs designed, developed, manufactured, packaged, and tested by suppliers with a Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) Trust accreditation.{SV-SP-5}{SR-1,SR-5}
|
|
| SPR-444 |
The [organization] shall ensure that the contractors/developers have all EEEE, and mechanical piece parts procured from the Original Component Manufacturer (OCM) or their authorized franchised distribution network.{SV-SP-5}{SR-1,SR-5}
|
These requirements might only make sense for ASIC/FPGA that are deemed to support mission critical functions. The Program has the responsibility to identify all ASICs and FPGAs that are used in all flight hardware by each hardware element. This list must include all contractor and subcontractor usage of ASICs and FPGAs.
|
| SPR-445 |
The [organization] shall use a DMEA certified environment to develop, code and test executable software (firmware or bit-stream) that will be programmed into a one-time programmable FPGA or be programmed into non-volatile memory (NVRAM) that the FPGA executes.{SV-SP-5}{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-446 |
The [organization] shall enable integrity verification of hardware components.{SV-SP-5,SV-SP-4}{SA-10(3),SA-8(21),SA-10(3),SC-51}
|
* 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-455 |
The [spacecraft] shall restrict access to flight software executables, cryptographic material, command dictionaries, and [organization]-defined sensitive payload data to the privileged execution domain and shall deny all other access by default.{SV-AC-1,SV-AC-3,SV-IT-3}{AC-3(11),AC-6}
|
Flight executables and cryptographic materials are high-value targets. Restricting access reduces exploitation pathways. Default deny enforces least privilege. Segmentation enhances resilience.
|
| SPR-456 |
The [spacecraft] shall implement OS or hardware enforcement for these restrictions and shall log any attempted access violations.{SV-AC-1,SV-DCO-1}{AC-3,AC-3(11)}
|
Hardware-enforced policy is harder to bypass than software-only controls. Logging violations supports detection and response. Layered enforcement strengthens assurance. Technical barriers reinforce governance intent.
|
| SPR-472 |
The [organization] shall define mission and business processes that map mission objectives to space-segment security requirements, including safe-mode criteria, secure uplink and downlink obligations, and recovery procedures, and shall baseline these processes under configuration control.{SV-MA-6,SV-AV-5}{PM-11,PL-2,CM-2}
|
Security must align with mission objectives. Explicit mapping ensures safe-mode criteria and communication obligations are controlled. Baseline governance prevents undocumented deviations. Integration supports mission assurance.
|
| SPR-476 |
The [organization] shall identify suppliers of mission-critical or mission-essential items and apply enhanced oversight that includes security practice vetting, contract language mandating secure manufacturing, and periodic compliance audits.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-5}{PM-30(1),SR-6,SR-3}
|
Mission-critical suppliers require elevated scrutiny. Contractual language enforces security standards. Periodic audits reduce supply chain risk. Oversight strengthens systemic assurance.
|
| SPR-477 |
The [organization] shall require independent testing and inspection of mission-critical components prior to integration to verify hardware integrity and cryptographic module assurance.{SV-SP-5,SV-AC-3}{PM-30(1),SR-11}
|
Third-party validation reduces conflict-of-interest risk. Independent inspection verifies hardware integrity and cryptographic assurance. External attestation strengthens confidence. Verification supports mission-critical trust.
|
| 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-479 |
The [organization] shall define, baseline, and maintain the purposing of the space platform and link segment, including intended objectives, authorized capabilities, prohibited functions, and operational constraints, and shall use this baseline to bound requirements, updates, and on-orbit operations.{SV-AC-8,SV-MA-6}{PM-32,PL-8}
|
Defining authorized and prohibited functions prevents scope creep. Clear purposing bounds updates and operational use. Governance limits misuse potential. Structured baseline supports disciplined operations.
|
| SPR-483 |
The [organization] shall require trusted generation of flight and payload software and configuration baselines in a controlled build environment that enforces signed commits, reproducible builds, cryptographic hashing, and code signing of release artifacts, and shall maintain a configuration-controlled golden image for comparison and rollback.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-3,SV-SP-9}{SA-10(4)}
|
Controlled builds prevent unauthorized code injection. Reproducible builds strengthen supply chain transparency. Golden images support rollback and forensic validation. Configuration control strengthens integrity.
|
| 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-489 |
The [spacecraft] shall host privileged functions, including flight control and cryptographic key management, in physically separate processing domains that have no direct data bus connectivity to non privileged domains. {SV-AC-6,SV-AC-3}{SC-3,SC-32(1),SC-39}
|
Hardware-level separation prevents software bypass. Isolation protects flight control and key management. Physical boundaries strengthen trust. Segmentation enforces zero-trust architecture.
|
| SPR-490 |
The [spacecraft] shall ensure cross domain exchanges occur only through [organization] defined, verified guards that enforce format, rate, and content checks.{SV-AC-6,SV-IT-2}{AC-4,SC-7,SC-32(1)}
|
Verified guards ensure controlled data exchange. Format and rate checks prevent covert channel exploitation. Enforced mediation supports mandatory control. Guarded exchange strengthens isolation.
|
| SPR-501 |
The [organization] shall assign and record unique cryptographic identities for flight-critical hardware components, firmware images, and software builds and shall maintain an authoritative registry mapping identities to approved suppliers and versions.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-5}{SR-4(1),IA-3}
|
Unique identities enable provenance tracking. Registry mapping supports supplier validation. Identity governance strengthens supply chain assurance. Structured attestation supports lifecycle integrity.
|
| SPR-502 |
The [spacecraft] shall report component and software identities and version fingerprints in telemetry at boot and upon changes to support provenance verification.{SV-SP-4,SV-MA-4}{SR-4(1),IA-3}
|
On-orbit reporting enables real-time provenance verification. Version fingerprints support anomaly detection. Transparency reduces silent drift. Telemetry-based attestation strengthens oversight.
|
| 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-506 |
The [organization] supplier shall provide a signed pedigree for each critical flight item (COTS/ASIC/FPGA/embedded SW library) including: manufacturing lot/wafer, test results and environmental/rad-hard certs, sub-tier sources, workforce vetting attestation as required, and full chain-of-custody events; the program shall store/track this in the SCRM/provenance ledger.{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-5}{SR-4(4),SR-6}
|
Signed pedigree documents manufacturing and handling lineage. Chain-of-custody transparency reduces counterfeit risk. Ledger tracking strengthens auditability. Supply chain evidence supports mission trust.
|
| SPR-507 |
The [organization] shall require independent lab attestations (e.g., rad-hardness, crypto module validation) for mission-essential/crypto-bearing parts; acceptance requires labs from an approved list.{SV-SP-5}{SR-4(4),SR-6}
|
Third-party validation strengthens assurance of rad-hardness and crypto modules. Approved lab lists reduce conflict of interest. Independent evidence increases confidence. Verification strengthens acceptance criteria.
|
| SPR-508 |
Within [organization]-defined window (e.g.,30/60/90 days) before integration or stow, the pedigree shall be re-verified and seals/marks inspected to detect substitution{SV-SP-4,SV-SP-5}{SR-4(4),SR-11,PE-16}
|
Time between receipt and integration creates substitution risk. Re-verification ensures seals, markings, and provenance remain intact. This reduces last-minute supply chain compromise. Periodic pedigree validation strengthens SCRM integrity.
|
| SPR-509 |
The [organization] shall procure flight items only from an AO-approved vetted supplier whitelist; off-list buys require documented risk acceptance and compensating pedigree/scanning.{SV-SP-4}{SR-4(4),SR-3,SR-5}
|
Restricting procurement to vetted suppliers reduces counterfeit and tampering risk. Off-list acquisitions require formal risk acceptance, preserving governance. Structured sourcing strengthens trust anchors. Controlled procurement reduces systemic exposure.
|
| SPR-510 |
The [organization] integrator shall perform anti-counterfeit scanning at: (1) incoming receipt, (2) pre-integration, and (3) pre-flight (or pre-stow); retain imagery and traces as ATO evidence.{SV-SP-5}{SR-11(3)}
|
Scanning at receipt, pre-integration, and pre-flight minimizes insertion windows. Retained imagery supports ATO evidence and forensic traceability. Multi-stage validation reduces counterfeit dwell time. Layered inspection strengthens assurance.
|
| SPR-511 |
The [organization] shall quarantine anti-counterfeit anomalies, block integration until disposition, open an incident record, notify SCRM lead/AO, and require supplier corrective action/lot containment as applicable.{SV-SP-4,SV-MA-5}{SR-11(3),IR-6}
|
Immediate quarantine prevents contaminated integration. Formal incident tracking ensures accountability. Supplier corrective actions reduce recurrence risk. Structured containment strengthens resilience.
|
| SPR-512 |
The [organization] shall maintain calibration of anti-counterfeit scanning tools and competency records for operators; calibration certs and training logs become part of the compliance package.{SV-SP-5}{SR-11(3)}
|
Tool calibration ensures detection reliability. Competency tracking strengthens operator assurance. Compliance documentation supports audit readiness. Precision supports integrity validation.
|
| SPR-516 |
The [organization] shall define,and the [spacecraft] shall enforce,guardrails for any unauthenticated discovery beacons (if used), limiting content to non‑sensitive signals that cannot enable timing/key inference, preventing state change via those paths, narrowing content in safe mode, and validating behavior in simulators/flatsats.{SV-CF-2,SV-IT-1}{AC-4,AC-14}
|
Discovery mechanisms can leak sensitive timing or state information. Guardrails restrict beacon content to non-sensitive data. Controlled discovery reduces inference risk.
|
| SPR-518 |
The [organization] shall require external stations/relays to complete an onboarding certification demonstrating operator/facility vetting, key custody and revocation practices, RF configuration discipline, time synchronization, and adherence to pass scheduling and emergency procedures, with periodic re‑certification.{SV-MA-7,SV-AC-4}{AC-17,AC-20,AC-20(1),SR-6}
|
Relay and partner stations expand trust boundaries. Certification ensures consistent security practices. Periodic re-validation prevents drift. External governance strengthens link integrity.
|
| 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-538 |
The [spacecraft] shall budget CPU/power/memory for security functions (crypto, logging, verification), implement graceful degradation (e.g., summarize logs, throttle verification) that preserves TT&C and safing, and expose telemetry showing throttling decisions and residual capacity.{SV-AV-1,SV-DCO-1}{PE-9,SA-8(8),SC-6,CP-2}
|
Security must not starve essential TT&C. Explicit resource budgeting ensures sustained enforcement. Graceful degradation preserves mission priority. Telemetry visibility supports oversight.
|
| SPR-539 |
The [spacecraft] shall ensure security‑critical functions (command authentication, key handling, secure boot) share minimal infrastructure with noncritical services by using separate processing domains or buses where feasible and strict message filtering across boundaries.{SV-MA-7,SV-SP-9}{SC-3,,AC-4,SA-8(11)}
|
Isolation reduces compromise propagation. Minimal shared infrastructure limits attack surface. Strict message filtering enforces boundaries. Architectural separation strengthens resilience.
|
| SPR-541 |
The [spacecraft] shall provide a trusted path for sensitive actions (e.g., key management, image activation) with strengthened authentication/integrity checks, narrow interfaces, and explicit telemetry cues (trusted‑path active, preconditions satisfied); operations shall confirm trusted‑path use before proceeding.{SV-AC-1,SV-SP-9}{SA-8(13),SC-11,SC-12}
|
Narrow interfaces reduce attack vectors. Explicit trusted-path indicators prevent misuse. Strengthened authentication protects critical operations. Procedural confirmation ensures compliance.
|
| 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.
|