What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on TVM-09 Vulnerability Prioritization?

Prioritisation method referencing a framework such as CVSS, EPSS or SSVC; Prioritised vulnerability backlog showing risk ratings; Records showing exploitability and asset criticality factored into priority; Periodic review of the prioritisation method.

What is the most common gap auditors find on TVM-09?

Priority set from base severity alone

CSA CCM v4.1 · TVM - Threat & Vulnerability Management

`TVM-09` Vulnerability Prioritization

The organisation prioritises which vulnerabilities to remediate first through a risk-based approach that draws on an industry recognised framework.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, TVM-09. 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

hard

to go live

Policy repository / GRC workspace

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

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Records showing exploitability and asset criticality factored into priority · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Periodic review of the prioritisation method · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Prioritisation method referencing a framework such as CVSS, EPSS or SSVC · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Prioritised vulnerability backlog showing risk ratings · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

Priority set from base severity alone
No asset criticality data, so risk cannot be judged
Framework named but not actually applied

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

TVM-08 Vulnerability Remediation Schedule · TVM-10 Threat Response