What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SI-2 Flaw Remediation?

SSP SI-2 statement describing flaw identification, reporting and remediation within FedRAMP High timeframes; Patch compliance reports and tickets showing remediation dates against the required timeframes; Security monitoring alert tuning records; Patch management policy with severity based SLAs; Patch deployment reports across server, endpoint, and network estates; Endpoint detection and response coverage report.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SI-2?

Input validation handled inconsistently across microservices

FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · SI - System and Information Integrity

`SI-2` Flaw Remediation

Identify, report, and correct system flaws; remediate within FedRAMP-defined timeframes (HIGH critical 15d, high 30d).

Source: FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), SI-2. 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

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

Patch compliance reports and tickets showing remediation dates against the required timeframes · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Security monitoring alert tuning records · SIEM / log platform
Patch deployment reports across server, endpoint, and network estates · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
Vulnerability remediation tickets with verification screenshots · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Endpoint detection and response coverage report · Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP SI-2 statement describing flaw identification, reporting and remediation within FedRAMP High timeframes · Document repository
Patch management policy with severity based SLAs · 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

Input validation handled inconsistently across microservices
Alert backlog exceeds analyst capacity leading to triage delays
Critical patches deployed beyond the policy SLA without exception
EDR coverage gaps on legacy operating systems

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

SI-1 Policy and Procedures · SI-2(2) Automated Flaw Remediation Status