What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on RV.1.1 Identify and Confirm Vulnerabilities on an Ongoing Basis?

Vulnerability disclosure policy and intake channel; Internal validation workflow; Severity rating model; Metrics on time from receipt to triage.

What is the most common gap auditors find on RV.1.1?

no published vulnerability disclosure channel

NIST SP 800-218 (SSDF) · Respond to Vulnerabilities

`RV.1.1` Identify and Confirm Vulnerabilities on an Ongoing Basis

Continuously identify vulnerabilities in released software using internal testing, external reports, and intelligence from component upstreams. Confirm reproducibility and severity before treating findings.

Source: NIST SP 800-218 (SSDF), RV.1.1. 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 NIST SP 800-218 (SSDF) in the compliance library.

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

Metrics on time from receipt to triage · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Vulnerability disclosure policy and intake channel · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Internal validation workflow · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Severity rating model · 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

no published vulnerability disclosure channel
researchers redirected to general support inbox
validation backlog grows because triage is undertasked

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

PW.9.2 Implement and Document Secure Defaults · RV.1.2 Review and Analyze Code for Vulnerabilities