Suppliers handling aerospace data should be prepared to provide specific, current security evidence, not just policy statements. The exact list depends on data classification (e.g., export-controlled, defense, proprietary), contract terms, and your own risk posture, but the categories below are a practical baseline.
1. Scope, data classification, and responsibilities
Before requesting evidence, define what you are actually asking them to protect:
- List of data types they will handle (e.g., CAD models, NC programs, FAI packages, process sheets, quality records, test results).
- Classification and regulatory flags for each (e.g., export-controlled, ITAR/EAR, controlled unclassified information, customer proprietary).
- Where the data will reside and flow: on-premises, cloud services, laptops, shop-floor equipment, USB, backups.
- Which party is responsible for which controls in any shared or cloud environment.
Without this scoping, you will either over-ask (and get meaningless boilerplate) or under-ask (and miss critical gaps).
2. Governance, policies, and roles
Request evidence that the supplier has formal security governance, not just ad hoc practices:
- Information security policy and acceptable use policy, with current approval dates.
- Role descriptions for security ownership (e.g., CISO, security officer, or equivalent function).
- Documented procedures for access management, change control, backup and recovery, and third-party management.
- Security training program materials and evidence of completion for staff who will access aerospace data.
Policies alone do not prove effectiveness, but absence of basic documentation is an early warning sign.
3. Export controls and technical data handling
For export-controlled or otherwise restricted aerospace data, request specific handling evidence:
- Documented export control compliance program (e.g., how they identify and segregate controlled technical data).
- Procedures for restricting access based on nationality or location where required.
- Evidence of data segregation for controlled vs non-controlled data (logical or physical, including backups).
- Records of training on export controls and handling of controlled technical data for relevant staff.
- Procedures for transferring controlled data (e.g., approved secure file transfer methods, no personal email or unmanaged cloud storage).
In mixed environments, verify how they prevent controlled data from leaking into general-purpose file shares, collaboration tools, or unmanaged endpoints.
4. Technical security controls
Ask for concrete descriptions and evidence of implemented technical controls, not just statements that they are “aligned” to a framework.
- Access control
- Identity and access management approach: SSO, MFA, password policies.
- Role-based access control for aerospace projects and data repositories.
- Joiner/mover/leaver procedures and sample records of recent access revocations.
- Endpoint and server protection
- Endpoint protection / EDR tooling and coverage levels for engineering workstations and shop-floor PCs.
- Patch management process and typical patching timelines for OS and key applications.
- Device control for USB/removable media where NC programs, drawings, or test data may be copied.
- Network security
- Network segmentation between office IT, OT networks, and guest or contractor zones.
- Remote access methods and controls (VPN, MFA, jump hosts) for accessing aerospace systems.
- Firewall and logging practices for systems holding or processing aerospace data.
- Data protection
- Encryption at rest and in transit for file stores, backups, and collaboration tools used for aerospace data.
- Data loss prevention or equivalent controls, if used, and their scope.
- Retention and deletion rules for aerospace datasets, including how they are enforced.
Where possible, request configuration summaries, architecture diagrams (sanitized if needed), and control matrices that tie controls to specific systems and data flows.
5. Independent assessments and certifications
Independent assessments are useful signals but not guarantees. Ask for:
- Recent penetration test or security assessment reports (or at least executive summaries) relevant to in-scope systems.
- Any security certifications or attestations that apply (e.g., ISO 27001, SOC 2, sector-specific schemes), with scope statements and dates.
- Internal audit schedules and sample findings related to access control, change management, or incident response.
Focus on scope and recency. A certification that excludes engineering data repositories or shop-floor systems offers limited assurance for aerospace data handling.
6. Incident detection, response, and notification
Suppliers should be able to show how they will detect and respond to issues involving your data:
- Documented incident response plan, including roles, escalation paths, and criteria for customer notification.
- Runbooks or playbooks for common events (e.g., phishing on engineering accounts, suspected compromise of file shares, lost laptop).
- Evidence of tests or exercises (e.g., incident simulations) and lessons learned.
- Typical log retention periods and where logs are stored for systems hosting aerospace data.
Align expectations contractually for notification timeframes, cooperation during investigations, and evidence preservation.
7. Vulnerability management and change control
In aerospace and other regulated environments, unmanaged change is often as risky as missing controls. Ask for:
- Vulnerability scanning reports or summaries for relevant networks and systems, with remediation timelines.
- Documented change management process for production systems handling aerospace data.
- Samples (sanitized if necessary) of change records that show risk assessment, approval, testing, and rollback planning.
- Approach to legacy systems that cannot easily be patched (e.g., compensating controls, isolation).
In brownfield environments with older MES, ERP, or machine controllers, you should see explicit treatment of systems that cannot meet modern security baselines.
8. Physical security and facility controls
For suppliers doing manufacturing, testing, or engineering work on your aerospace programs, request:
- Access control methods for facilities and secure areas (badges, visitor management, escort policies).
- Controls for engineering labs, server rooms, and any dedicated aerospace project areas.
- Policies for printed technical data, whiteboards, and physical media disposal.
Check that physical and logical controls line up. For example, segregated data in IT systems is undermined if any visitor can enter an open office where laptops are unlocked.
9. Supplier’s own third parties and cloud services
Your supplier’s subcontractors and SaaS providers may also handle your aerospace data. Ask for:
- List of material sub-processors and cloud services involved in storing or processing your data.
- Security due diligence performed on those third parties.
- Contract clauses they use with their own suppliers for incident notification and data handling.
Brownfield reality often includes legacy hosting providers and niche engineering tools; you should understand where those sit in the security posture.
10. Evidence format and lifecycle
To make the evidence usable across programs and audits, define how it will be delivered and maintained:
- Standard questionnaire or control framework mapping (e.g., your own supplier security questionnaire aligned to your policies).
- Cadence for updates (e.g., annually, or on material changes such as new cloud providers or scope expansion).
- Secure evidence transfer method (no uncontrolled email of sensitive reports).
- How you will store, review, and tie evidence to specific contracts, plants, and data categories.
Clarify that evidence requirements can change over the life of long aerospace programs as threats, regulations, and architectures evolve.
11. How this fits into regulated, long-lifecycle environments
In aerospace, attempting to standardize on a single, monolithic security solution across all suppliers and plants often fails due to integration constraints, qualification burdens, and long equipment life. Instead, focus on:
- Clear minimum control expectations and evidence requirements that can be met with different technical implementations.
- Traceable documentation tying each supplier’s controls to your requirements and specific data flows.
- Change control when suppliers introduce new tools (e.g., PLM, MES, cloud collaboration) that handle your data.
This approach acknowledges brownfield realities while still giving you a defendable record of due diligence and ongoing oversight.
