What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on AIS-07 Application Vulnerability Remediation?

Application vulnerability remediation procedure with severity-based fix timelines; Vulnerability tracker export showing discovery date, owner and closure for sampled findings; Escalation path and roles for overdue or critical application vulnerabilities; Evidence of automated fixes (for example automated dependency update pull requests); Metrics on remediation time against target.

What is the most common gap auditors find on AIS-07?

Fix timelines defined but routinely missed without escalation

CSA CCM v4.1 · AIS - Application & Interface Security

`AIS-07` Application Vulnerability Remediation

A process for fixing application security vulnerabilities is defined and followed, with remediation automated where possible.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, AIS-07. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open CSA CCM v4.1 in the compliance library.

Version 4.1 adds 11 controls (among them API security, log sanitisation and a service bill of materials) and renumbers several domains. CSA accepts v4.0.x during its transition; if your STAR assessment is still on v4.0.1, check the numbering against it.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

easy

to go live

Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

where the evidence lives

teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

Vulnerability tracker export showing discovery date, owner and closure for sampled findings · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Evidence of automated fixes (for example automated dependency update pull requests) · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Metrics on remediation time against target · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Application vulnerability remediation procedure with severity-based fix timelines · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Escalation path and roles for overdue or critical application vulnerabilities · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Automate the pull from your Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling. Scan schedule, findings and remediation age straight from the scanner; patch compliance from the patch console.

Common gaps auditors find

Fix timelines defined but routinely missed without escalation
Vulnerabilities from penetration tests tracked separately and never closed
No retest to confirm a fix

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

AIS-06 Secure Application Deployment · AIS-08 API Security