Question: Are software and hardware suppliers required to follow secure-development and integrity-assurance practices?
Why This Matters
Compromised components (e.g., malicious updates) can bypass your own controls. Requiring secure SDLC and integrity verification reduces supply-chain attack risk.
Maturity
No control over supplier development process.
Rely on vendor claims without evidence.
Contracts mandate secure SDLC and change control.
Evidence of code reviews and vulnerability testing obtained.
Integrity signatures and SBOM review before deployment.
Automated SBOM and supply-chain risk scoring in CI/CD pipeline.
How to Level Up
| From → To | Actions | |—|—| | 0 → 1 |List software/hardware vendors affecting production.| | 1 → 2 |Insert secure SDLC and integrity clause in contracts.| | 2 → 3 |Request evidence of testing and certifications.| | 3 → 4 |Collect SBOM and hash signatures for critical deliverables.| | 4 → 5 |Automate SBOM analysis and alerting in build pipeline. |
Enablers
- People: Procurement, DevOps, CISO
- Process: Specify → Validate → Deploy → Monitor
- Technology: SBOM tools, CI/CD scanner, integrity verifier
Evidence
- Signed hashes and SBOMs
- Secure SDLC policy references
- Supplier test reports
KPIs
- Number of vendors providing SBOMs
- Percentage with secure SDLC certification
- Integrity verification success rate
Low-Cost / Open-Source Options (MSME)
| Purpose | Tool | Notes | |—|—|—| | SBOM | Syft / CycloneDX CLI | Generate and compare SBOMs | | Validation | Trivy / Grype | Vulnerability scan | | Tracking | Airtable | Supplier evidence log |
Common Pitfalls
- Accepting unsigned deliverables
- No review of SBOM content
- Ignoring hardware firmware risk
Compliance Mapping
| Standard | Clauses / Notes | |—|—| | ISO/IEC 27001 | A.8.28 / A.5.19 | | NIST CSF 2.0 | PR.SD / ID.SC | | DPDP Act 2023 | Processor integrity assurance | | NIRMATA Mapping | SC-Q07 prevents tampering via supplier integrity controls. |