| name | SA-17(3)_formal-correspondence |
| description | Require the developer of the system, system component, or system service to: Produce, as an integral part of the development process, a formal top-lev |
| category | configuration |
| version | 5.2.0 |
| author | cyberstrike-official |
| tags | ["nist","sp800-53","rev5","sa-17-3","sa","enhancement"] |
| tech_stack | ["any"] |
| cwe_ids | ["CWE-16"] |
| chains_with | ["AC-3","AC-4","AC-25","SA-4","SA-5"] |
| prerequisites | ["SA-17"] |
| severity_boost | {"AC-3":"Chain with AC-3 for comprehensive security coverage","AC-4":"Chain with AC-4 for comprehensive security coverage","AC-25":"Chain with AC-25 for comprehensive security coverage"} |
SA-17(3) Formal Correspondence
Enhancement of: SA-17
High-Level Description
Family: System and Services Acquisition (SA)
Framework: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5
Correspondence is an important part of the assurance gained through modeling. It demonstrates that the implementation is an accurate transformation of the model, and that any additional code or implementation details that are present have no impact on the behaviors or policies being modeled. Formal methods can be used to show that the high-level security properties are satisfied by the formal system description, and that the formal system description is correctly implemented by a description of some lower level, including a hardware description. Consistency between the formal top-level specification and the formal policy models is generally not amenable to being fully proven. Therefore, a combination of formal and informal methods may be needed to demonstrate such consistency. Consistency between the formal top-level specification and the actual implementation may require the use of an informal demonstration due to limitations on the applicability of formal methods to prove that the specification accurately reflects the implementation. Hardware, software, and firmware mechanisms internal to security-relevant components include mapping registers and direct memory input and output.
What to Check
How to Test
Step 1: Review Documentation
Examine the System Security Plan (SSP) and related artifacts for SA-17(3) 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
