SA 11(8) Dynamic Code Analysis

---
name: "SA-11(8)_dynamic-code-analysis"
description: "Require the developer of the system, system component, or system service to employ dynamic code analysis tools to identify common flaws and document t"
category: "configuration"
version: "5.2.0"
author: "cyberstrike-official"
tags:
  - nist
  - sp800-53
  - rev5
  - sa-11-8
  - sa
  - enhancement
tech_stack:
  - any
cwe_ids:
  - CWE-16
chains_with: []
prerequisites:
  - SA-11
severity_boost: {}
---

# SA-11(8) Dynamic Code Analysis

> **Enhancement of:** SA-11

## High-Level Description

**Family:** System and Services Acquisition (SA)
**Framework:** NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5

Dynamic code analysis provides runtime verification of software programs using tools capable of monitoring programs for memory corruption, user privilege issues, and other potential security problems. Dynamic code analysis employs runtime tools to ensure that security functionality performs in the way it was designed. A type of dynamic analysis, known as fuzz testing, induces program failures by deliberately introducing malformed or random data into software programs. Fuzz testing strategies are derived from the intended use of applications and the functional and design specifications for the applications. To understand the scope of dynamic code analysis and the assurance provided, organizations may also consider conducting code coverage analysis (i.e., checking the degree to which the code has been tested using metrics such as percent of subroutines tested or percent of program statements called during execution of the test suite) and/or concordance analysis (i.e., checking for words that are out of place in software code, such as non-English language words or derogatory terms).

## What to Check

- [ ] Verify SA-11(8) Dynamic Code Analysis is documented in SSP
- [ ] Confirm control is operating effectively
- [ ] Review evidence of continuous monitoring for SA-11(8)
- [ ] Verify enhancement builds upon base control SA-11

## How to Test

### Step 1: Review Documentation

Examine the System Security Plan (SSP) and related artifacts for SA-11(8) implementation details. Verify the organization has documented how this control is satisfied.

### Step 2: Validate Implementation

```
# For cloud environments, use cloud-audit-mcp tools
# For on-premises, review system configurations directly

# Example: Check if account management policies exist
grep -r "account.management\|access.control" /etc/security/ 2>/dev/null
```

### Step 3: Test Operating Effectiveness

Verify the control is actively functioning, not just documented. Check logs, configurations, and operational evidence.

## Tools

| Tool          | Purpose                           | Usage |
| ------------- | --------------------------------- | ----- |
| Manual Review | Documentation and interview-based | N/A   |

## Remediation Guide

### Control Statement

Require the developer of the system, system component, or system service to employ dynamic code analysis tools to identify common flaws and document the results of the analysis.

### Implementation Guidance

Dynamic code analysis provides runtime verification of software programs using tools capable of monitoring programs for memory corruption, user privilege issues, and other potential security problems. Dynamic code analysis employs runtime tools to ensure that security functionality performs in the way it was designed. A type of dynamic analysis, known as fuzz testing, induces program failures by deliberately introducing malformed or random data into software programs. Fuzz testing strategies are derived from the intended use of applications and the functional and design specifications for the applications. To understand the scope of dynamic code analysis and the assurance provided, organizations may also consider conducting code coverage analysis (i.e., checking the degree to which the code has been tested using metrics such as percent of subroutines tested or percent of program statements called during execution of the test suite) and/or concordance analysis (i.e., checking for words that are out of place in software code, such as non-English language words or derogatory terms).

## Risk Assessment

| Finding                                        | Severity | Impact                                     |
| ---------------------------------------------- | -------- | ------------------------------------------ |
| SA-11(8) Dynamic Code Analysis not implemented | Medium   | System and Services Acquisition            |
| SA-11(8) partially implemented                 | Low      | Incomplete System and Services Acquisition |

## CWE Categories

| CWE ID | Title         |
| ------ | ------------- |
| CWE-16 | Configuration |

## References

- [NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 - SA-11(8)](https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cprt/catalog#/cprt/framework/version/SP_800_53_5_1_1/home?element=sa-11.8)
- [NIST SP 800-53A Rev 5 (Assessment Procedures)](https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/53/a/r5/final)
- [NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 Full Catalog](https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/53/r5/upd1/final)

## Checklist

- [ ] Control documented in SSP
- [ ] Implementation evidence collected
- [ ] Operating effectiveness validated
- [ ] Continuous monitoring in place
- [ ] Related controls (none) reviewed