On bent-pipe or regenerative transponders, configuration controls what is translated, amplified, and routed. An adversary can remap input–output paths, shift translation frequencies, adjust polarization or gain to favor non-mission receivers, or enable auxiliary ports so selected virtual channels or recorder playbacks are forwarded outside the planned ground segment. In regenerative systems, edited routing tables or QoS rules can mirror traffic to an attacker-controlled endpoint. The result is a sanctioned-looking carrier that quietly delivers mission data to unauthorized listeners.
| ID | Name | Tiering | Description | NIST Rev5 | ISO 27001 | Onboard SV | Ground | |
| CM0025 | Supplier Review | A supplier review is a structured pre-contract assessment conducted before entering into any agreement with a contractor or subcontractor for the acquisition of systems, system components, or system services. The review evaluates the prospective supplier's security posture, trustworthiness, and capability to deliver components or services that meet the mission's integrity and assurance requirements, before contractual commitments are made and before the supplier gains access to mission information or influence over mission systems. Supplier reviews reduce the risk of introducing supply chain vulnerabilities through poorly qualified, compromised, or adversary-influenced suppliers at any tier of the acquisition chain. The rigor and depth of the review should be calibrated to the criticality of the components or services being acquired, with suppliers of mission-critical hardware, software, or services subject to the most intensive assessment. Supplier review findings should inform not only the decision to contract but also the specific security requirements, oversight provisions, and flow-down obligations included in the resulting agreement. | PL-8 PL-8(1) PL-8(2) PM-30 PM-30(1) RA-3(1) SA-11 SA-11(3) SA-17 SA-2 SA-3 SA-8 SA-9 SR-11 SR-3(1) SR-3(3) SR-4 SR-4(1) SR-4(2) SR-4(3) SR-4(4) SR-5 SR-5(1) SR-5(2) SR-6 | A.5.8 4.4 6.2 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 10.2 A.5.2 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.31 A.8.27 A.8.28 A.5.2 A.5.4 A.5.8 A.5.14 A.5.22 A.5.23 A.8.21 A.8.29 A.8.30 A.8.25 A.8.27 A.5.21 A.8.30 A.5.20 A.5.21 A.5.23 A.8.29 A.5.22 | ||||
| CM0026 | Original Component Manufacturer | Hardware components that cannot be sourced directly from the original component manufacturer (OCM) or an authorized franchised distributor, and software that cannot be obtained from the original publisher, developer, or an authorized distribution channel, represent elevated supply-chain risk and must not be procured or incorporated into the mission system without documented approval from the program’s supply-chain governance authority. Sourcing hardware from the OCM or authorized franchised distributors provides greater assurance of component authenticity, traceability, and conformance to specification. Obtaining software from the original publisher, developer, or an authorized distribution channel similarly reduces the risk of unauthorized, altered, fraudulent, or malicious software. Deviations from these approved sourcing channels introduce additional supply-chain risk that must be assessed before acceptance. The approval process for non-OCM-sourced items must evaluate the specific risk posed by the alternative source, the criticality of the component or software to mission function, the availability and adequacy of compensating inspection and authentication measures, and whether a compliant source can be identified before accepting the deviation. This governance requirement applies to hardware components, firmware, and software, although the applicable sourcing and authentication methods differ. Hardware controls should address component authenticity and traceability, while software controls should address publisher or developer provenance, distribution-channel integrity, license legitimacy, and cryptographic verification where available. | AC-20(5) PL-8 PL-8(1) PL-8(2) PM-30 PM-30(1) RA-3(1) SA-10(4) SA-11 SA-3 SA-8 SA-9 SR-1 SR-11 SR-2 SR-2(1) SR-3 SR-3(1) SR-3(3) SR-4 SR-4(1) SR-4(2) SR-4(3) SR-4(4) SR-5 SR-5(1) SR-5(2) | A.5.8 4.4 6.2 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 10.2 A.5.2 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.31 A.8.27 A.8.28 A.5.2 A.5.4 A.5.8 A.5.14 A.5.22 A.5.23 A.8.21 A.8.29 A.8.30 5.2 5.3 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 A.5.1 A.5.2 A.5.4 A.5.19 A.5.31 A.5.36 A.5.37 A.5.19 A.5.20 A.5.21 A.8.30 A.5.20 A.5.21 A.5.21 A.8.30 A.5.20 A.5.21 A.5.23 A.8.29 | ||||
| CM0027 | ASIC/FPGA Manufacturing | Custom application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) should be fabricated through accredited trusted foundries, and field-programmable gate array (FPGA) devices should be procured through trusted suppliers with documented fabrication provenance, to reduce the risk of hardware Trojan insertion or unauthorized modification. Unlike software, hardware trojans embedded during semiconductor manufacturing are extremely difficult to detect through functional testing alone, as they may be designed to activate only under specific operational conditions or remain dormant indefinitely; the integrity of the fabrication source is therefore a primary defense. Trusted foundry accreditation provides assurance that the accredited fabrication activities are subject to security controls intended to reduce the risk of unauthorized modification. Assurance for design, intellectual property, aggregation, packaging, assembly, testing, and distribution must be addressed through trusted suppliers or other controls applicable to those lifecycle stages. This requirement applies to custom ASICs and to the base silicon used in FPGA implementations. The programmable design loaded onto an FPGA requires separate protection because trusted fabrication of the device does not establish the integrity or authenticity of the configured bitstream. | AC-14 PL-8 PL-8(1) PL-8(2) PM-30 PM-30(1) RA-3(1) SA-10(3) SA-11 SA-3 SA-8 SA-8(11) SA-8(13) SA-8(16) SA-9 SI-3 SI-3(10) SR-1 SR-11 SR-2 SR-2(1) SR-3 SR-5 SR-5(2) SR-6(1) | A.5.8 4.4 6.2 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 10.2 A.5.2 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.31 A.8.27 A.8.28 A.5.2 A.5.4 A.5.8 A.5.14 A.5.22 A.5.23 A.8.21 A.8.29 A.8.30 A.8.7 5.2 5.3 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 A.5.1 A.5.2 A.5.4 A.5.19 A.5.31 A.5.36 A.5.37 A.5.19 A.5.20 A.5.21 A.8.30 A.5.20 A.5.21 A.5.20 A.5.21 A.5.23 A.8.29 | ||||
| CM0028 | Tamper Protection | Tamper protection encompasses physical and logical controls that detect, deter, and respond to unauthorized modification of mission hardware and software throughout the acquisition, transit, storage, integration, and operational phases of the mission lifecycle. Physical tamper protection requires inspection of hardware at defined custody transfer points to detect evidence of unauthorized access or modification, and requires the use of tamper-evident packaging and sealing mechanisms during shipping and receiving to ensure that any interference with equipment in transit is detectable upon arrival. Logical tamper protection addresses the integrity of software and firmware through layered techniques including code obfuscation, integrity checks that verify software has not been altered from its approved state, and runtime integrity monitoring mechanisms such as self-checking code. Watchdog processes may supplement these controls by detecting abnormal execution or failure to complete expected processing, but do not by themselves verify software integrity. Physical and logical tamper protections are complementary and should be applied together where warranted by system criticality, threat exposure, and lifecycle conditions. Physical access to hardware can enable logical tampering, while failure to verify software integrity can reduce the assurance provided by physical controls. | AC-14 AC-25 CA-8(1) CA-8(3) CM-7(9) MA-7 PL-8 PL-8(1) PL-8(2) PM-30 PM-30(1) RA-3(1) SA-10(3) SA-10(4) SA-11 SA-3 SA-4(5) SA-4(9) SA-8 SA-8(11) SA-8(13) SA-8(16) SA-8(19) SA-8(31) SA-9 SC-51 SR-1 SR-10 SR-11 SR-11(3) SR-2 SR-2(1) SR-3 SR-4(3) SR-4(4) SR-5 SR-5(2) SR-6(1) SR-9 SR-9(1) | A.5.8 4.4 6.2 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 10.2 A.5.2 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.31 A.8.27 A.8.28 A.5.2 A.5.4 A.5.8 A.5.14 A.5.22 A.5.23 A.8.21 A.8.29 A.8.30 5.2 5.3 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 A.5.1 A.5.2 A.5.4 A.5.19 A.5.31 A.5.36 A.5.37 A.5.19 A.5.20 A.5.21 A.8.30 A.5.20 A.5.21 A.5.20 A.5.21 A.5.23 A.8.29 | ||||
| CM0004 | Development Environment Security | A secure development environment requires a current and sufficiently complete inventory of the people, devices, software, services, credentials, and automated identities capable of accessing or influencing the environment. The development environment includes source-code repositories, developer workstations, build servers, CI/CD runners, compiler and linker toolchains, container and virtual machine images, package registries, artifact repositories, signing systems, test environments, integration laboratories, and release-staging systems. For space systems, these environments may produce or manage flight software images, firmware, FPGA bitstreams, software-defined radio waveforms, command and telemetry databases, configuration tables, ephemerides, calibration products, fault-management logic, and on-orbit update packages. Unmanaged assets, unauthorized access, compromised dependencies, altered toolchains, and untrusted build services are significant pathways through which adversaries may maliciously modify software or other mission artifacts during development and build activities. All personnel and assets touching the development environment must be inventoried and actively managed. MFA shall be enforced for human access, while non-human identities shall use managed workload identities, scoped credentials, protected secrets, and defined rotation or expiration period, with particular rigor applied to code repositories, where threat actors may attempt to inject malicious code into software under development without detection. Zero-trust access controls should govern repository access, with protected branch and tag policies shall restrict direct modification, prohibit unauthorized force pushes or deletion, require successful security checks, and require independent review before merging or releasing critical code. Effective development environment security also requires integrated change management, privilege management, comprehensive audit logging, and continuous in-depth monitoring across all components of the environment. | AC-17 AC-18 AC-20(5) AC-3(11) AC-3(13) AC-3(15) CA-8 CA-8(1) CM-11 CM-14 CM-2(2) CM-3(2) CM-3(7) CM-3(8) CM-4(1) CM-5(6) CM-7(8) CP-2(8) MA-7 PL-8 PL-8(1) PL-8(2) PM-30 PM-30(1) RA-3(1) RA-3(2) RA-5 RA-5(2) RA-9 SA-10 SA-10(4) SA-11 SA-11(1) SA-11(2) SA-11(4) SA-11(5) SA-11(6) SA-11(7) SA-11(8) SA-15 SA-15(3) SA-15(5) SA-15(7) SA-15(8) SA-17 SA-3 SA-3(1) SA-3(2) SA-4(12) SA-4(3) SA-4(5) SA-4(9) SA-8 SA-8(19) SA-8(30) SA-8(31) SA-9 SC-38 SI-2 SI-2(6) SI-7 SR-1 SR-11 SR-2 SR-2(1) SR-3 SR-3(2) SR-4 SR-4(1) SR-4(2) SR-4(3) SR-4(4) SR-5 SR-5(2) SR-6 SR-6(1) SR-7 | A.8.4 A.5.14 A.6.7 A.8.1 A.5.14 A.8.1 A.8.20 A.8.9 A.8.9 A.8.31 A.8.19 A.5.30 A.5.8 4.4 6.2 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 10.2 A.8.8 A.5.22 A.5.2 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.31 A.8.33 A.8.28 A.8.27 A.8.28 A.5.2 A.5.4 A.5.8 A.5.14 A.5.22 A.5.23 A.8.21 A.8.9 A.8.28 A.8.30 A.8.32 A.8.29 A.8.30 A.8.28 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.28 A.8.25 A.8.27 A.6.8 A.8.8 A.8.32 5.2 5.3 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 A.5.1 A.5.2 A.5.4 A.5.19 A.5.31 A.5.36 A.5.37 A.5.19 A.5.20 A.5.21 A.8.30 A.5.20 A.5.21 A.5.21 A.8.30 A.5.20 A.5.21 A.5.23 A.8.29 A.5.22 A.5.22 | ||||
| CM0010 | Update Software | Regular software and firmware updates are a primary mechanism for reducing exploitation risk by remediating known vulnerabilities before adversaries can leverage them against mission systems. Updates must undergo suitable regression testing to verify that security patches do not introduce functional defects or degrade safety-critical behaviors before deployment to operational systems. Release cadence should be governed by a mission-defined update frequency that balances vulnerability severity, exploitability, mission risk tolerance, testing requirements, and operational constraints. The program should define maximum allowable remediation or deployment timeframes (e.g., 30 days) for applicable vulnerability severities rather than applying a single update interval to all software and firmware. Update scheduling must account for operational constraints, coordinating patch deployment with mission downtime windows to avoid disrupting critical operations. Following a successful update, superseded software versions should be removed from active operational use unless retained as an authorized recovery image. Verified restoration images, commonly referred to as gold images, should be retained under access and integrity controls to support recovery when an update introduces unacceptable system behavior or an authorized rollback is operationally required. | CM-3(2) CM-3(7) CM-3(8) CM-4 CM-4(1) CM-5(6) CM-7(5) SA-10(4) SA-11 SA-3 SA-8 SA-8(30) SA-8(31) SA-8(8) SA-9 SI-2 SI-2(6) SI-7 | A.8.9 A.8.9 A.8.9 A.8.31 A.8.19 A.5.2 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.31 A.8.27 A.8.28 A.5.2 A.5.4 A.5.8 A.5.14 A.5.22 A.5.23 A.8.21 A.8.29 A.8.30 A.6.8 A.8.8 A.8.32 | ||||
| CM0011 | Vulnerability Scanning | Vulnerability scanning systematically identifies known security weaknesses in commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) and open-source software (OSS) components, including vulnerable dependencies and outdated software versions, across spacecraft and ground system environments. Custom-developed code requires separate analysis approaches, such as static and dynamic code analysis, that fall outside the scope of this countermeasure; however, COTS, OSS, and third-party dependencies incorporated into custom-developed software remain within the scope of vulnerability scanning and SCA. Scanning programs should incorporate software composition analysis (SCA) to detect vulnerabilities introduced through third-party libraries and dependency chains, which represent a significant and frequently underestimated attack surface in modern space systems. Scanning tools and processes should conform to recognized interoperability standards that support enumeration of platforms, software flaws, and configuration weaknesses; standardized formatting of checklists and test procedures; and consistent measurement of vulnerability impact. Adherence to these standards enables automation of key vulnerability management workflow steps, facilitates tool interoperability across the mission ecosystem, and produces outputs that are comparable across programs and organizations. Vulnerability scanning shall be performed against the approved as-built or deployed software baseline using methods that do not jeopardize mission operations. Active scanning of live spacecraft, safety-critical ground systems, or operational technology should occur only after the scanning method has been authorized and evaluated for operational impact. Where live scanning presents unacceptable risk, scanning should be performed against representative software images, firmware packages, or test environments that match the approved operational baseline. | CM-10(1) RA-3 RA-5 RA-5(11) RA-5(3) RA-7 SA-11 SA-11(3) SA-15(7) SA-3 SA-4(5) SA-8 SA-8(30) SI-3 SI-3(10) SI-7 | 6.1.2 8.2 9.3.2 A.8.8 A.8.8 6.1.3 8.3 10.2 A.5.2 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.31 A.8.27 A.8.28 A.8.29 A.8.30 A.8.7 | ||||
| CM0012 | Software Bill of Materials | A software bill of materials (SBOM) is a structured inventory of software components, libraries, dependencies, and associated metadata comprising a delivered system, spanning first-party code and available third-party and open-source supply-chain information. The SBOM serves as the foundational reference for continuous vulnerability management: by cross-correlating the component inventory against known vulnerability databases, such as those cataloging common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVEs), mission owners and operators can rapidly identify which specific system components are affected by newly disclosed vulnerabilities and prioritize remediation accordingly. SBOM generation must cover the full software supply chain, including transitive dependencies that are not explicitly declared in top-level manifests, as these indirect inclusions represent a persistent and frequently exploited blind spot in software inventory programs. An SBOM may reveal component composition and vulnerability-relevant information that could assist adversary reconnaissance. Its classification, sensitivity, dissemination, and handling requirements shall be determined using applicable mission guidance, contractual requirements, and a documented disclosure-risk assessment. If deemed to have sensitive information then the handling controls applied should align to other mission-critical security documentation as defined in CM0001. | CM-10 CM-10(1) CM-11 CM-11(3) CM-2 CM-5(6) CM-7(4) CM-7(5) CM-8 CM-8(7) PM-5 RA-5 RA-5(11) SA-10(2) SA-10(4) SA-11 SA-11(3) SA-3 SA-4(5) SA-8 SA-8(13) SA-8(29) SA-8(30) SA-8(7) SA-9 SI-7 | A.8.9 A.8.19 A.8.19 A.5.9 A.8.9 A.5.32 A.8.19 A.8.8 A.5.2 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.31 A.8.27 A.8.28 A.5.2 A.5.4 A.5.8 A.5.14 A.5.22 A.5.23 A.8.21 A.8.29 A.8.30 | ||||
| CM0021 | Software Digital Signature | Each software or firmware image subject to installation or update control shall be verified using an approved digital signature and an approved trust anchor before installation or activation. The trust anchor may be represented by a certificate or by a directly provisioned verification key, depending on the approved trust architecture. Successful verification establishes that the image was signed by an authorized signing identity and has not been modified since signing; it does not establish that the signed code is non-malicious, vulnerability-free, or operationally safe. Signature verification confirms the integrity and approved origin of the software but does not, by itself, prevent installation of an older validly signed version; update authorization and rollback protections must be enforced separately. The verification mechanism must be implemented such that it cannot be bypassed through operational commands, configuration changes, or software updates, and must reject any component whose signature is absent or invalid, or whose signing certificate or trust anchor is not recognized and approved by the mission. Digital signature enforcement complements but is distinct from the boot-time chain of trust established through secure boot; it applies to software installation and update events throughout the operational lifecycle, not only at system startup. | AC-14 CM-11 CM-11(3) CM-14 CM-5(6) IA-2 SA-10(1) SA-11 SA-4(5) SA-8(29) SA-8(31) SA-9 SI-7 SI-7(1) SI-7(12) SI-7(15) SI-7(6) | A.8.19 A.5.16 A.5.2 A.5.4 A.5.8 A.5.14 A.5.22 A.5.23 A.8.21 A.8.29 A.8.30 | ||||
| CM0023 | Configuration Management | Configuration management (CM) for space systems requires automated mechanisms to establish, maintain, validate, and report on the approved baseline configuration of spacecraft and supporting ground systems, ensuring the baseline remains current, complete, and accurate throughout the mission lifecycle. Automated mechanisms should support configuration management by improving the accuracy, currency, and validation of configuration records. Automation does not replace formal change control, engineering review, approval, or other configuration management activities that require human judgment. The approved baseline must be readily accessible to authorized personnel for operational decision-making, anomaly investigation, and change impact assessment. Deviations between the documented baseline and the actual system configuration represent both security and operational risk because undocumented changes may introduce vulnerabilities, mask adversary activity, or produce unpredictable system behavior. Automated validation should identify and report configuration drift at mission-defined intervals or following relevant change events, based on system observability and mission risk. | CM-11(3) CM-2 CM-3(4) CM-3(6) CM-3(7) CM-3(8) CM-4 CM-5 CM-5(6) MA-7 SA-10 SA-10(2) SA-10(7) SA-11 SA-3 SA-4(5) SA-4(9) SA-8 SA-8(29) SA-8(30) SA-8(31) SI-7 SR-11(2) | A.8.9 A.8.9 A.8.9 A.8.9 A.8.2 A.8.4 A.8.9 A.8.19 A.8.31 A.8.3 A.5.2 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.31 A.8.27 A.8.28 A.8.9 A.8.28 A.8.30 A.8.32 A.8.29 A.8.30 | ||||
| CM0005 | Ground-based Countermeasures | Ground-based countermeasures protect the terrestrial capabilities that develop, launch, command, monitor, operate, secure, and sustain space missions. These capabilities may be distributed across mission-owned systems, contractor environments, external partners, and commercial service providers. Because ground segment architectures and responsibilities vary, cybersecurity protections should be selected through threat-informed analysis of the mission functions being performed rather than through indiscriminate application of a single control set. The SPARTA Ground Segment Cyber Defenses guidance provides an interactive functional decomposition that maps ground segment function groups to applicable Defense-in-Depth sub-layers and countermeasure targets. The supporting report, VTR-2026-00702 Rev A, Ground Segment Cyber Defenses and Risk-Based Tiering, provides the methodology, definitions, and risk-tier rationale. The accompanying Ground Segment Cyber Defenses Excel Workbook consolidates the function mappings and Baseline and Enhanced countermeasure guidance into a resource that can be tailored to a specific mission architecture. | SPARTA Ground Segment Cyber Defenses guidance | None | ||||
| CM0014 | Secure boot | Secure boot establishes and enforces a cryptographically verified chain of trust from a hardware-anchored root of trust (RoT) through each applicable stage of the startup sequence to the operating system or flight software image. Each stage in the chain must verify the integrity and authenticity of the next before transferring execution control. The boot policy must also prevent execution of unauthorized or revoked images, including unauthorized rollback to an older but validly signed software version. The trust anchor and initial verification function should be immutable after provisioning or protected by hardware-enforced mechanisms that prevent unauthorized modification and preserve their integrity. Components implementing the RoT must also be qualified for the expected mission radiation environment. Radiation tolerance addresses the reliability of the trust anchor, while immutability or protected update mechanisms address its resistance to unauthorized modification. This is particularly critical where radiation-induced bit flips and the physical inaccessibility of on-orbit hardware make a tamper-resistant, immutable hardware anchor essential to sustained boot integrity across the mission lifetime. | AC-14 PL-8 PL-8(1) SA-8(10) SA-8(12) SA-8(13) SA-8(3) SA-8(30) SA-8(4) SC-51 SI-7 SI-7(1) SI-7(10) SI-7(9) | A.5.8 | ||||