Yes, in an example form. NIST SP 800-218, the Secure Software Development Framework, includes a practice on reviewing and analyzing human-readable code, and one of its implementation examples is using a static analysis tool with a human reviewing what it reports. It is a framework of recommendations, and your organization defines when and how.
What the document is
SP 800-218 describes the SSDF as a core set of high level secure software development practices that can be integrated into any software development life cycle. NIST says following the practices should help producers reduce vulnerabilities in released software, limit the impact of undetected ones, and address root causes. It also gives purchasers a common vocabulary for talking to suppliers.
Because it is a framework, treat it as a menu of practices and examples, not a checklist where every example is mandatory.
Where static analysis shows up
The relevant practice is PW.7, which covers reviewing and analyzing human-readable code to find vulnerabilities and verify compliance with security requirements. The document says automated methods lower the effort needed to detect vulnerabilities, and that human-readable code includes source code, scripts and any other form of code an organization deems human-readable.
Two tasks matter here:
| Task | What it says in plain words |
|---|---|
| PW.7.1 | Decide, by your own policy, whether code review and/or code analysis should be used |
| PW.7.2 | Do the review or analysis against your secure coding standards, and record and triage every discovered issue in the team's workflow or issue tracker |
One listed example under PW.7.2 is using a static analysis tool to check code for vulnerabilities and compliance with the organization's secure coding standards, with a human reviewing the issues and fixing them as needed. Another example is using automated tools to identify and remediate documented unsafe practices on a continuous basis as code is checked into the repository.
What this means for a SAST program
Three practical consequences follow:
- Write down your policy for when analysis runs. PW.7.1 expects an organizational decision, not a default.
- Keep a standard to analyze against. The task refers to your own secure coding standards.
- Record findings and triage them in a tracker. A scan that nobody reads does not meet the spirit of PW.7.2.
Note the phrase "in conjunction with a person." The framework assumes tool output is reviewed.
What to avoid saying
Do not tell a buyer that the SSDF requires a specific tool, or that owning a scanner means you conform. Whether an obligation applies to you depends on contracts and rules that are outside this post, and a security or legal advisor should confirm it. What you can say accurately is which practices you follow and what evidence you keep.
A worked example: turning PW.7 into your own policy
The framework leaves the decisions to you, so here is what a small policy might look like for a team that builds a web application.
Scope: all application repositories that deploy to production. Out of scope: throwaway prototypes that never ship, listed by name and reviewed twice a year.
Method: automated code analysis on every pull request, plus peer review by a second developer. Higher risk changes, such as authentication code, also get a review by someone trained in secure coding.
Standard: the team's secure coding standard, a page of rules written in plain language.
Record: findings go to the team's issue tracker with a label, an owner and a status. Fixed, accepted with a reason, and not applicable are the only closing states.
Review: once a year, the team rereads the policy and checks that practice still matches it.
That is one page. It answers PW.7.1 (when to use review and analysis), supports PW.7.2 (against standards, with records), and gives a buyer something concrete.
Mapping the practice to evidence
An assessor or buyer will usually ask for proof, not description. A simple evidence table helps you collect it as you go.
| What you claim | What you can show |
|---|---|
| We decided when analysis runs | The written policy, with a date and an owner |
| We have a secure coding standard | The standard document and its version history |
| Analysis runs on changes | Pipeline configuration and a sample of scan results |
| Issues are recorded and triaged | Tracker entries with statuses and decisions |
| Humans review tool output | Pull request comments or triage notes |
Each row is something a team can produce without special effort if it was captured along the way. Trying to rebuild the evidence months later is far harder.
Common mistakes
- Buying a tool and stopping. The practice is about the process around the tool. The record and triage steps are what make it count.
- Writing a policy nobody follows. A policy that describes aspirations will be contradicted by your own pipeline logs.
- Treating examples as requirements. The document labels its implementation examples as notional. They illustrate ways to meet a practice. You may meet it differently.
- Ignoring non-application code. The practice covers any human readable code you decide is in scope, such as scripts. Decide deliberately and record it.
Where static analysis sits next to executable testing
The SSDF has a separate practice, PW.8, for testing executable code to find vulnerabilities. Static analysis belongs under PW.7 because it works on human readable code. Dynamic testing belongs under PW.8 because it works on the running or built software. A program that cites only one of them leaves out half of what the framework describes. If you are mapping your practices, list both and say which tools and reviews fall where.
What buyers do with your answer
Customers who ask about the SSDF are usually trying to understand how you reduce vulnerabilities in what you ship. They rarely need a tool name. They want to know that a decision was made, a standard exists, issues are recorded, and someone looks at them. If you can say that in four sentences and back it with samples, you have answered the question well.
Try it yourself
Click through it at your own pace, or open it full screen. Look at how one piece of evidence can map to more than one framework.
Quick check
Is a SAST tool required by the SSDF?
The framework lists static analysis as an example for a practice, not as a mandatory product. Your policy decides how you meet PW.7.
What should I keep as evidence?
Keep your policy, your secure coding standard, scan results, and the triage record showing what was fixed or accepted.
Does the SSDF name a specific static analysis product?
No. It describes practices and notional examples and does not name products, so any tool you choose should be judged on how well it supports your own policy.
Safeguard offers compliance and evidence automation, along with policies and gates, and a free scan at gold.safeguard.sh/scan.
Sources
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
