What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on TVM-12 Vulnerability Management Metrics?

Defined vulnerability metrics, for example mean time to remediate and open criticals by age; Dashboards or periodic metric reports; Distribution records showing reports reached their audience on schedule; Trend analysis and resulting actions.

What is the most common gap auditors find on TVM-12?

Metrics defined but not reported on schedule

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

`TVM-12` Vulnerability Management Metrics

The organisation sets measures for finding and fixing vulnerabilities, tracks them, and reports them at set intervals.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, TVM-12. 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

moderate

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

Defined vulnerability metrics, for example mean time to remediate and open criticals by age · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Dashboards or periodic metric reports · Cloud console / configuration management
Distribution records showing reports reached their audience on schedule · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Trend analysis and resulting actions · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 1 of 4 artefacts that already live in a system (Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Metrics defined but not reported on schedule
Metrics exclude cloud or container assets
No targets, so metrics cannot drive action

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-11 Vulnerability Management Reporting · UEM-01 Endpoint Devices Policy and Procedures