DO-326A evidence
Security risk assessment effectiveness review for airworthiness security evidence review
This work is for security engineer, certification liaison, systems engineer who need security risk assessment effectiveness review evidence cleaned up before Airworthiness security evidence review. EE examines threat condition list, attack path analysis, security risk assessment, measure architecture, source revisions, and related closure statements to find missing records, stale assumptions, and unsupported references. The review provides traceability and discrepancy documentation only. The buyer receives the register and evidence map needed to brief the next gate.
When this review is needed
- A review date is fixed and the security risk assessment effectiveness review package still contains open assumptions.
- Configuration, requirement, or method changes occurred after part of the evidence was written.
- Management needs a short exposure list tied to owners and blocked decisions.
- A prior submittal or audit question showed that the current trail is hard to reproduce.
The problem
A mature package can still fail review if attack path analysis and effectiveness tests answer different questions. The review turns those differences into assignable discrepancies.
What gets reviewed
- Read threat condition list for scope, assumptions, and interfaces to related plans.
- Reconcile attack path analysis with security risk assessment and the controlled configuration record.
- Sample measure architecture where the highest risk claims depend on it.
- Document gaps in effectiveness tests that need engineering disposition.
- Package safety assessment links evidence so reviewers can see the trail without rebuilding it.
What gets validated
- Document control must be able to retrieve every referenced file without interpreting informal folder names.
- The baseline test compares attack path analysis with effectiveness tests and fails unresolved differences.
- Assumptions are checked where security risk assessment relies on prior credit, similarity, service history, or supplier data.
- Disposition notes are reviewed for technical content rather than simple administrative closeout.
- The final request list captures missing records separately from engineering disagreements.
Evidence normally required
Common discrepancies
- Failure modes: threats identified but no effectiveness demonstrated.
- a measure that does not actually cover an identified attack path.
- a security assessment disconnected from the safety consequences.
What is at stake
Once a formal gate depends on the package, every unresolved discrepancy competes with engineering work that should already be finished. Clear owner assignment reduces that scramble.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Frame Security Risk
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any threat condition list is treated as sufficient.
Trace Effectiveness Review
Walk the named evidence from index entry to source artifact and mark where the trail supports, conflicts with, or fails to answer the page-specific question.
Sort Evidence 326a
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Mapped Measures
Deliver the exception list, evidence map, and owner sequence in a form that can move directly into remediation, submittal cleanup, or transaction negotiation.
What the buyer receives
- Finding support matrix
- Revision and assumption log
- Open question list
- Closure evidence package
- Limits memo for security risk assessment effectiveness review
Who uses the output
- security engineer prioritizes source record recovery.
- certification liaison confirms engineering dispositions.
- systems engineer keeps the closure package aligned with the baseline.
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Does the airworthiness-security evidence show the selected security measures are effective against the identified threat conditions, because DO-356A credit depends on effectiveness evidence, not merely a threat list. The evidence set centers on the threat-condition and attack-path identification, the security risk assessment and assigned level, the security-measure selection and architecture, the effectiveness analysis/test tying each measure to the threats it counters, and the link to the safety assessment. The likely weak points are threats identified but no effectiveness demonstrated, a measure that does not actually cover an identified attack path, and a security assessment disconnected from the safety consequences; Pairs with the DO-356A methods standard page; distinct from round-1's security-risk-assessment-evidence-review, which reviews the assessment existence, not measure effectiveness. The output gives the security engineer a cleanup register for Security risk assessment effectiveness review for airworthiness security before airworthiness security evidence review.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Regulatory limits
This work does not certify the article, approve a plan, or close a finding by itself. It prepares the security risk assessment effectiveness review record set for review by the responsible engineering, delegation, and authority personnel.
What this review does not cover
- Supplier contract enforcement
- Final airworthiness determination
- Approval of plans or reports
- Tool qualification package development
Specific to this review
- safety assessment links often decides whether reviewers can reproduce the trail without asking the original author.
- A clean transmittal does not prove the evidence supports the claim behind security risk assessment effectiveness review.
- Configuration drift usually appears as a small identifier mismatch before it becomes a certification issue.
- Closure evidence should explain why the discrepancy is resolved, not merely that it was reviewed.
- The scope uses the Security Risk Assessment Effectiveness question as the control point, so the review stays tied to Airworthiness security evidence review and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with threat condition list and follows Review Airworthiness Evidence 326a references until every exception has a source location and a reason code.
- The finding logic separates missing paperwork, conflicting status, stale revision data, and unsupported disposition because each class closes through a different owner.
- The timing matters for security engineer: the output is useful only if the unresolved items are visible before acceptance, submittal, handback, or negotiation pressure fixes the sequence.
- The boundary control keeps Threats Mapped Measures Actually questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from Finding support matrix; it gives the next reviewer a precise map instead of another broad request for a better file.
Sources
RTCA. Airworthiness security process objectives for aircraft systems exposed to intentional unauthorized electronic interaction.
SAE International. Safety assessment methods (FHA, PSSA, SSA, FTA, FMEA) supporting development assurance level assignment.
Frequently asked questions
What makes this evidence review different from a general file audit?
The scope is tied to security risk assessment effectiveness and to the decision named in the request. A general audit can list weak records; this pass ranks the gaps by whether they block airworthiness security evidence review or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is threat condition list, the current status source, and any index or matrix that tells reviewers where the supporting artifact should live. Missing inputs are logged as findings rather than filled with assumptions.
Who decides whether an open item is acceptable?
The review explains what the evidence supports and gives security engineer a closure path. Acceptance remains with the buyer, operator, authority, delegated engineer, or authorized person responsible for the underlying airworthiness or certification decision.
Relevant glossary terms
Related pages
Where this fits
Talk to an engineer who has done this work
We will walk through your current state, the records or evidence involved, and a scoped first engagement.
Talk through the aircraft, records, evidence, deadline, and next useful step.