VPM-05.2: Automated Remediation Status
Automated mechanisms exist to determine the state of system components with regard to flaw remediation.
Control Question: Does the organization use automated mechanisms to determine the state of system components with regard to flaw remediation?
General (18)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| CIS CSC 8.1 | 7.4 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG1 | 7.4 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 | 7.4 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 | 7.4 |
| GovRAMP Core | SI-02(02) |
| GovRAMP Moderate | SI-02(02) |
| GovRAMP High | SI-02(02) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SI-2(2) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) | SI-2(2) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (high) | SI-2(2) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | SI-2(2) SI-2(4) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | SI-2(2) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | SI-2(2) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) | SI-2(4) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | SI-2(2) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | SI-2(2) |
| OWASP Top 10 2021 | A06:2021 |
| SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) | VPM-05.2 |
US (11)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CJIS Security Policy 5.9.3 (source) | SI-2(2) |
| US CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SI-2(2) |
| US DHS ZTCF | EPM-02 |
| US FedRAMP R4 | SI-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | SI-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | SI-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | SI-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) | SI-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | SI-2(2) |
| US IRS 1075 | SI-2(2) SI-2(4) |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | SI-2(2) |
EMEA (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 | 22.11 22.12 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to determine the state of system components with regard to flaw remediation.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to determine the state of system components with regard to flaw remediation.
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
See C|P-CMM3. There are no defined C|P-CMM4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to determine the state of system components with regard to flaw remediation.
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 determine the state of system components with regard to flaw remediation.
Assessment Objectives
- VPM-05.2_A01 automated mechanisms to determine if applicable security-relevant software and firmware updates are installed on system components are defined.
- VPM-05.2_A02 the frequency at which to determine if applicable security-relevant software and firmware updates are installed on system components is defined.
- VPM-05.2_A03 system components have applicable security-relevant software and firmware updates installed frequency using automated mechanisms.
- VPM-05.2_A04 the system components requiring automated patch management tools to facilitate flaw remediation are defined.
- VPM-05.2_A05 automated patch management tools are employed to facilitate flaw remediation to components.