Control statement
Inspect the following systems or system components [Organization-defined: sr-10_odp.02] to detect tampering: [Organization-defined: systems or system components].
Discussion
The inspection of systems or systems components for tamper resistance and detection addresses physical and logical tampering and is applied to systems and system components removed from organization-controlled areas. Indications of a need for inspection include changes in packaging, specifications, factory location, or entity in which the part is purchased, and when individuals return from travel to high-risk locations.
Organization-defined parameters
These values must be resolved through the organization’s tailoring and governance process. Bracketed parameter references in the control text identify where a decision is required.
From control text to operational evidence
Use Inspection of Systems or Components as a testable risk decision. Translate the official statement into accountable people, repeatable processes, configured technology, and evidence that demonstrates the outcome over time. In this family, pay particular attention to cybersecurity supply-chain governance, provenance, supplier risk, component authenticity, and dependency resilience.
Implementation workflow
- Define the control boundary, responsible owner, inherited portions, and systems or processes in scope.
- Resolve each organization-defined parameter before declaring the control implemented.
- Document how the implementation satisfies every clause of the official control statement.
- Collect evidence as a normal byproduct of operation rather than only before an assessment.
- Review exceptions, changes, and monitoring results on a risk-based cadence.
Evidence examples
- supplier inventories and criticality ratings
- contract security clauses
- provenance and authenticity records
- supplier monitoring and incident records
Common failure patterns
- tier-one vendors assessed while sub-tier dependencies are ignored
- contracts lack evidence and notification obligations
- open-source and service dependencies omitted
- supplier risk reviews occur only at onboarding
Questions practitioners should ask
- What risk decision is this control intended to support in this system?
- Which parts are implemented locally, inherited, shared, or not applicable—and what evidence supports that decision?
- Do the documented narrative, deployed configuration, operating process, and collected evidence agree?
- What event or threshold requires the implementation to be reviewed or changed?
Assessment objectives and methods
Show the assessment objective
[Organization-defined: systems or system components] are inspected [Organization-defined: sr-10_odp.02] to detect tampering.
Examine
- Supply chain risk management policy and procedures
- supply chain risk management plan
- system and services acquisition policy
- records of random inspections
- inspection reports/results
- assessment reports/results
- acquisition documentation
- service level agreements
- acquisition contracts for the system, system component, or system service
- inter-organizational agreements and procedures
- system security plan
- other relevant documents or records
Interview
- Organizational personnel with system and services acquisition responsibilities
- organizational personnel with information security responsibilities
- organizational personnel with supply chain risk management responsibilities
Test
- Organizational processes for establishing inter-organizational agreements and procedures with supply chain entities
- organizational processes to inspect for tampering
Related controls
These relationships come from the official OSCAL catalog. They indicate useful dependencies or context, not automatic inheritance or equivalence.
Authoritative sources
Bare Metal Cyber is an independent educational publisher and is not affiliated with or endorsed by NIST. Official control requirements and interpretations remain with NIST and the responsible authorizing organization.