KSI-SVC-VRIValidating Resource Integrity
Use cryptographic methods to validate the integrity of machine-based information resources.
Mapped NIST 800-53 controls (7)
- recipe6
- KSI only1
The mark says whether an authored AWS recipe fetches evidence for the control; the tier strip shows which Rev5 baselines also require it — where automated KSI evidence doubles as Rev5 control evidence. = in the class B, C and D baselines, left to right
- recipe— an authored recipe collects evidence for this control
- KSI only— a Key Security Indicator reaches it, but no recipe is authored yet
- orphan— no Key Security Indicator reaches it — a person writes it up instead
Collect evidence (3)
Authored AWS recipes whose output is evidence for KSI-SVC-VRI. This mapping is this project’s opinion (overlay v3.0.0), versioned separately from the dataset — the upstream FedRAMP rules name none of these tools.
- partialAWS Config compliance results proving KMS customer-managed keys are lifecycle-managed — automatic annual rotation enabled and no active key scheduled for deletion — the key-hygiene half of the cryptographic-protection controlcontinuousconfig-ruleconfig-kms-key-managementAWS Config · AWS KMS
Rated partial: these rules prove key management (rotation, retention) as telemetry, but SC-13's core requirement — that the cryptographic module itself is FIPS 140-2/3 validated — is satisfied by using AWS KMS FIPS endpoints (kms-fips.<region>.amazonaws.com) and validated modules, which is a documented configuration/architecture assertion the compliance result does not itself carry. Attach the KMS FIPS endpoint usage evidence and the CMP module certificate reference alongside these results. Rotation is not supported for asymmetric/HMAC/imported-material/custom-key-store keys — scope the rotation rule accordingly.
- partialCryptographic proof that the audit trail CloudTrail delivered has not been altered or deleted, plus the compliance state of the write-once controls that make stored records and container images tamper-evidentweeklycliintegrity-verification-and-immutabilityAWS CloudTrail · AWS Config · Amazon S3 · AWS Backup · Amazon ECR
The strong claim here is narrow and worth stating precisely. validate-logs is real cryptography — SHA-256 hashing with SHA-256/RSA signing, an hourly digest file that references the last hour's log files and carries the signature of the previous digest — so a clean run positively asserts that the delivered log files were not modified or deleted, and can even assert that no log files were delivered in a window you believed was empty. What it will not do: validate files you moved, since they must stay where CloudTrail put them; and it cannot report tampering across a gap — disable validation for an hour and no digest exists for that hour, so the chain simply breaks. Enabling the feature is not the same as checking it, which is why both the Config rule and the CLI run belong here: the rule proves digests are being produced, the run is the only thing that verifies them. Object Lock and Vault Lock are prevention, not detection — they make a deletion fail rather than proving none happened, and Object Lock only counts if the mode and period match your policy: the rule's optional mode parameter is what pins GOVERNANCE versus COMPLIANCE, and unset it passes either. Vault Lock in governance mode can be removed by anyone holding the IAM permission, so read Locked together with LockDate — before that date even a compliance-mode lock is still removable. The honest gap is the host: SI-7 asks for integrity verification of software, firmware and information, and nothing above watches a filesystem. ECR tag immutability stops a tag being repointed at a different image but says nothing about drift inside a running instance; file integrity monitoring is third-party or self-built on AWS, and SI-7(1)'s ‘defined frequency’ is a policy number you compare against, not an API result. Finally, a NON_COMPLIANT-only query returns an empty array on success and says nothing about resources Config never evaluated — join it against recorder coverage before reading emptiness as compliance.
- partialEvery running instance built from an image you never approved and every node carrying denylisted software, together with proof that an automated action was configured for those findings and a record of what it did when one firedcontinuouscliunauthorized-component-detection-and-responseAWS Config · AWS Systems Manager Automation · AWS Systems Manager Inventory · Amazon EC2
CM-8(3) has two halves and only one comes free. Detection is genuine: APPROVED_AMIS_BY_TAG is configuration-change triggered, so an instance launched from an unapproved image is flagged as it appears rather than at the next sweep, and the remediation records are real evidence of action — TargetId names the document that ran, Automatic separates auto-remediation from a button a human pressed, and StepDetails timestamps each step and quotes the error when one fails. What telemetry cannot supply is the definition of ‘unauthorized’. APPROVED_AMIS_BY_TAG matches on up to ten AMI tag keys or key:value pairs that you assert mean approved, so it tests your tagging discipline as much as your fleet — tag an unvetted image and it becomes compliant. The applications denylist needs exact application names with no wildcards, and the name differs per distribution; it evaluates AWS::SSM::ManagedInstanceInventory, so a node with no agent or no inventory association is simply not evaluated rather than flagged — read it beside the inventory-coverage recipe or you will mistake blindness for cleanliness. Neither rule sees firmware, and neither sees what a container image runs. The response side also carries a judgement someone must record: CM-8(3)b wants a chosen action — disable network access, isolate the component, notify defined personnel — and choosing to isolate a production instance automatically is a risk decision, not a default. Deliberate overlap: EC2_MANAGEDINSTANCE_APPLICATIONS_BLACKLISTED also carries CM-7 and CM-7.01 in the least-functionality recipe, where it proves prohibited software is absent; here the same signal is read as detection of an unauthorized component, with the remediation record attached.
Default evidence owed by every indicator (5)
From info.default_artifacts.KSI — no indicator carries its own artifacts; requirement-specific evidence lives on /evidence.
- Explanation of measures (and their objectives) that demonstrate the Key Security Indicator, or an explanation of the reason and resulting risk to customers for not having measures available for that Key Security Indicator.
- Explanation of the cycle for any measures that are implemented persistently (if applicable).
- Verification that the measures demonstrate the Key Security Indicator, or that the reason for not having them is accepted.
- Verification that the automation in place is accurate and sufficient to demonstrate appropriate measures for the Key Security Indicator, or that automation is not necessary for each measure.
- Validation that the measures are accurately produced and are in place and working as intended, or that the reason for not having them is valid.
Defined terms used (3)
- Information Resource
- Has the meaning from 44 USC § 3502 (6): "information and related resources, such as personnel, equipment, funds, and information technology." This includes any aspect of the cloud service offering, both technical and managerial, including everything that makes up the business of the offering from non-machine-based information resources like organizational policies, procedures, employees, etc. to machine-based information resources like hardware, software, cloud services, code, etc.
- Machine-Based (Information Resources)
- Any information technology information resource—including systems, processes, software, hardware, services, cloud-native capabilities, and any other such capability, component, or resource—that relies primarily on mechanical or electronic devices (i.e. computers) for operation.
- Validation
- Confirmation through objective evidence that implemented security capabilities and related certification data are suitable for their intended FedRAMP Certification use and support the expected security outcomes for a cloud service offering.
The Service Configuration run (8)
6/8 have an authored AWS recipe- 2 authored recipesKSI-SVC-ACMAutomating Configuration Management
- 2 authored recipesKSI-SVC-ASMAutomating Secret Management
- 4 authored recipesKSI-SVC-EISEvaluating and Improving Security
- no authored recipeKSI-SVC-PRRPreventing Residual Risk
- no authored recipeKSI-SVC-RUDRemoving Unwanted Data
- 7 authored recipesKSI-SVC-SINSecuring Information
- 2 authored recipesKSI-SVC-VCMValidating Communications
- 3 authored recipesKSI-SVC-VRIValidating Resource Integrityyou are here