Skip to main content

VPM-05.1: Centralized Management of Flaw Remediation Processes

VPM 9 — Critical Protect

Mechanisms exist to centrally-manage the flaw remediation process.

Control Question: Does the organization centrally-manage the flaw remediation process?

General (27)
Framework Mapping Values
CIS CSC 8.1 7.4
CIS CSC 8.1 IG1 7.4
CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 7.4 18.3
CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 7.4 18.3
CSA CCM 4 AIS-07 TVM-05 UEM-07
CSA IoT SCF 2 CCM-07 CLS-06 VLN-01
IEC 62443-4-2 2019 NDR 3.10 (15.7.3(1))
MPA Content Security Program 5.1 TS-4.2
NIST 800-53 R4 SI-2(1)
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) SI-2(1)
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) PL-9 SI-2(4)
NIST 800-53B R5 (privacy) (source) PL-9
NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) SI-2(4)
NIST 800-161 R1 PL-9
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 1 PL-9
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 PL-9
OWASP Top 10 2021 A06:2021
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A (source) 6.3.1 6.3.3 6.4.3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B-IP (source) 6.3.1 6.3.3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) 6.3.1 6.3.3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C-VT (source) 6.3.1 6.3.3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3
Shared Assessments SIG 2025 T.2
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) VPM-05.1
US (11)
Framework Mapping Values
US C2M2 2.1 RISK-2.I.MIL3
US CMS MARS-E 2.0 SI-2(1)
US DoD Zero Trust Execution Roadmap 2.5
US DHS ZTCF EPM-02
US FedRAMP R4 SI-2(1)
US FedRAMP R4 (high) SI-2(1)
US IRS 1075 SI-2(4)
US NSTC NSPM-33 6.11
US SSA EIESR 8.0 5.6
US - CA CCPA 2025 7123(c)(5)(D)
US - MA 201 CMR 17.00 17.04(7)
EMEA (4)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA EU NIS2 21.4
EMEA Germany C5 2020 PSS-03
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 12.21 22.11 22.12
EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 TPC-91
APAC (2)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2024 ISM-0298 ISM-0300
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 7.4.1 7.4.2

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to centrally-manage the flaw remediation process.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to centrally-manage the flaw remediation process.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) efforts are requirements-driven and governed at a local/regional level, but are not consistent across the organization. CMM Level 2 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Identify cybersecurity and data protection controls to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for ASM. o Apply software patches and other vulnerability remediation efforts.

  • Attack Surface Management (ASM) is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
  • IT/cybersecurity personnel:
  • Administrative processes and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 3 — Well Defined

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) efforts are standardized across the organization and centrally managed, where technically feasible, to ensure consistency. CMM Level 3 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Defines the scope of ASM activities. o Provides governance oversight for the implementation of applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual cybersecurity and data protection controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's applications, systems, services and data with regards to ASM. o Provides oversight of ASM activities to centrally manage the flaw remediation process as part of the organization's overall Patch& Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP). o Manages the identification, tracking and remediation of vulnerabilities. o Utilizes a Security Incident Event monitor (SIEM), or similar automated tool, to monitor for unauthorized activities, accounts, connections, devices and software according to organization-specific Indicators of Compromise (IoC), including feeds from applications, hosts, network devices and vulnerability scanners.

  • An IT Asset Management (ITAM) function, or similar function, categorizes devices according to the data the asset stores, transmits and/ or processes and applies the appropriate technology controls to protect the asset and data.
  • A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) function, or similar function:
  • A Security Operations Center (SOC), or similar function:
  • Asset custodians install the latest stable version of security-related updates on all systems within the organization-defined time requirements.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) efforts are metrics driven and provide sufficient management insight (based on a quantitative understanding of process capabilities) to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and identify areas for improvement. In addition to CMM Level 3 criteria, CMM Level 4 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
  • Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
  • Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
  • Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
  • Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
  • Both business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving

See C|P-CMM4. There are no defined C|P-CMM5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to centrally-manage the flaw remediation process.

Assessment Objectives

  1. VPM-05.1_A01 cybersecurity / data privacy controls and related processes to be centrally managed are defined.
  2. VPM-05.1_A02 controls and related processes are centrally managed.
  3. VPM-05.1_A03 the system components requiring automated patch management tools to facilitate flaw remediation are defined.
  4. VPM-05.1_A04 automated patch management tools are employed to facilitate flaw remediation to components.

Technology Recommendations

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.