This technique targets what developers import and the tools that transform source into flight binaries. Methods include dependency confusion and typosquatting, poisoned container/base images, malicious IDE plugins, and compromised compilers, linkers, or build runners that subtly alter output. Because flight and ground stacks frequently reuse open-source RTOS components, crypto libraries, protocol parsers, and build scripts, an upstream change can deterministically reproduce a backdoor downstream. Attackers also seed private mirrors or caches so “trust-on-first-use” locks in tainted packages, or abuse CI secrets and environment variables to pivot further. Effects range from inserting covert handlers into command parsers, to weakening integrity checks in update paths, to embedding telemetry beacons that exfiltrate build metadata helpful for later stages.
| ID | Name | Tiering | Description | NIST Rev5 | ISO 27001 | Onboard SV | Ground | |
| CM0001 | Protect Sensitive Information | Space mission sensitive information spans a broad attack surface and must be inventoried, classified, and protected at a level commensurate with its sensitivity across every location where it resides, including ground systems, contractor networks, and remote access environments. Sensitive material typically includes functional and performance specifications, interface control documents (ICDs), command and telemetry (C&T) databases, uplink protection schemes including disable and bypass features, fault management logic, scripts, simulation and rehearsal results, failure and anomaly resolution records, and architecture and software documentation. Each information type must be assigned a protection level, such as unclassified, controlled, proprietary, or classified, and access must be restricted to personnel with defined roles and a verified need to know. Sensitive data shall be protected at rest and in transit using encryption or other mission-approved safeguards commensurate with its classification, sensitivity, threat exposure, and operational constraints. DLP capabilities shall be applied to systems and data flows where they are technically feasible and effective, with alternative access controls, monitoring, or information-flow protections used where conventional DLP technology is not suitable. Ongoing configuration management must track, control, and document all changes to command procedures and critical database content to prevent unauthorized modification and mission degradation. | AC-25 AC-3(11) AC-4(23) AC-4(25) AC-4(6) CA-3 CM-12 CM-12(1) PL-8 PL-8(1) PM-11 PM-17 SA-3 SA-3(1) SA-3(2) SA-4(12) SA-5 SA-8 SA-8(19) SA-9(7) SC-16 SC-16(1) SC-8(1) SC-8(3) SI-12 SI-21 SI-23 SR-12 SR-7 | A.8.4 A.8.11 A.8.10 A.5.14 A.8.21 A.5.8 A.5.2 A.5.8 A.8.25 A.8.31 A.8.33 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 A.5.37 A.8.27 A.8.28 A.5.33 A.8.10 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 | ||||
| CM0013 | Dependency Confusion | Dependency confusion is a software supply chain attack in which an adversary publishes a malicious package to a public repository using the same name as an organization's internal private package, exploiting build tools that may inadvertently resolve the public version over the intended internal one. Mitigating this attack requires a layered set of controls: internal dependencies must be sourced exclusively from private, controlled repositories rather than public package registries; build and continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) pipeline configurations must explicitly define trusted repository sources and resolution order to prevent inadvertent public package substitution; and dependency integrity must be validated at the point of consumption by verifying that cryptographic checksums match those of the known-good official packages. A secure build environment is a prerequisite for these controls to be effective, as a compromised build environment can undermine dependency controls regardless of repository configuration. Together, these measures ensure that only verified, intended dependencies are incorporated into flight software, ground system software, and supporting toolchains. | CM-10(1) CM-11 CM-2 CM-5(6) RA-5 SA-11 SA-3 SA-8 SA-8(30) SA-8(7) SA-8(9) SA-9 SI-7 | A.8.9 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 | ||||