What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on RA-5 Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning?

SSP RA-5 statement describing authenticated scan scope and frequency for OS, web applications and databases with remediation timeframes; Monthly vulnerability scan results and remediation tickets showing critical and high findings closed within timeframes; Risk acceptance memos signed by accountable executives; Risk assessment methodology approved by leadership; Risk register with likelihood, impact, and treatment owners; Vulnerability scan reports for internal, external, and authenticated scopes.

What is the most common gap auditors find on RA-5?

Risk register entries lack named owner or due date

FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · RA - Risk Assessment

`RA-5` Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning

Scan for vulnerabilities monthly (FedRAMP); OS/network weekly, web app monthly, database monthly; remediate within FedRAMP timeframes (HIGH critical 15d, high 30d).

Source: FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), RA-5. 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 FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) in the compliance library.

A FedRAMP baseline is a subset of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, enhancements included.

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

Monthly vulnerability scan results and remediation tickets showing critical and high findings closed within timeframes · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Vulnerability scan reports for internal, external, and authenticated scopes · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Penetration test report with retest evidence · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP RA-5 statement describing authenticated scan scope and frequency for OS, web applications and databases with remediation timeframes · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Risk acceptance memos signed by accountable executives · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Risk assessment methodology approved by leadership · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Risk register with likelihood, impact, and treatment owners · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 2 of 7 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

Risk register entries lack named owner or due date
Penetration tests scope narrow and exclude key applications
Scan coverage gaps for containerised and ephemeral workloads
Threat intelligence consumed but not operationalised into detections

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

RA-3(1) Risk Assessment | Supply Chain Risk Assessment (RA-3(1)) · RA-5(2) Update Vulnerabilities to be Scanned