EvidenceSheet
PCI DSS v4.0.1 · Appendix A1: Additional requirements for multi-tenant service providers

A1.2.3 Customer reporting and remediation of incidents and vulnerabilities

The provider must have processes or mechanisms to report and deal with security incidents and vulnerabilities, whether suspected or confirmed, including: a secure channel through which customers can report incidents and vulnerabilities to the provider; and the provider addressing and remediating those issues in line with Requirement 6.3.1. Guidance: issues should be handled through the provider's established processes, giving priority to the vulnerabilities most likely to lead to compromise. Objective under the customized approach: incidents and vulnerabilities, suspected or confirmed, are found and dealt with, and customers are notified where appropriate. Future-dated: treated as a best practice up to 31 March 2025 and mandatory since then.

Source: PCI DSS v4.0.1, A1.2.3. 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 PCI DSS v4.0.1 in the compliance library.

Version 4.0.1 is the active version; 4.0 has been retired. Appendix A1 applies only to multi-tenant service providers, A2 only to card-present POS POI terminals that still use SSL or early TLS, and A3 only when a payment brand or acquirer requires it. Which requirements apply to you follows your validation type.

4
artefacts
0
held by a system
3
at each review
hard
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

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Procedure linking customer reports to the 6.3.1 risk-ranking process · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
  • Sample of customer-reported issues with triage and remediation records · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
  • Customer notification records for confirmed issues · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Published secure reporting channel for customers (portal, encrypted mailbox) · 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

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

A1.2.2 Support for prompt forensic investigation of any customer · A2.1.1 Confirm SSL/early TLS POS POI devices resist known exploits