Skip to main content

VPM-06.1: Update Tool Capability

VPM 8 — High Protect

Mechanisms exist to update vulnerability scanning tools.

Control Question: Does the organization update vulnerability scanning tools?

General (31)
Framework Mapping Values
CSA CCM 4 TVM-04 TVM-05
GovRAMP Core RA-05
GovRAMP Low RA-05 RA-05(02)
GovRAMP Low+ RA-05 RA-05(02)
GovRAMP Moderate RA-05 RA-05(02)
GovRAMP High RA-05 RA-05(02)
NIST 800-53 R4 RA-5(1) RA-5(2)
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) RA-5(1) RA-5(2)
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) RA-5(1) RA-5(2)
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) RA-5 RA-5(2)
NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) RA-5 RA-5(2)
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) RA-5 RA-5(2)
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) RA-5 RA-5(2)
NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay RA-5 RA-5(2)
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay RA-5 RA-5(2)
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay RA-5 RA-5(2)
NIST 800-161 R1 RA-5
NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline RA-5
NIST 800-161 R1 Flow Down RA-5
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 RA-5
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 RA-5
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) NFO-RA-5(1) NFO-RA-5(2)
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.11.02.c
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.11.02.ODP[04] A.03.11.02.c[01] A.03.11.02.c[02]
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 11.3.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) 11.3.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) 11.3.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) 11.3.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational VPM-06.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure VPM-06.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats VPM-06.1
US (13)
Framework Mapping Values
US CMS MARS-E 2.0 RA-5(1) RA-5(2)
US DHS ZTCF EPM-02
US FedRAMP R4 RA-5(1) RA-5(2)
US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) RA-5(1) RA-5(2)
US FedRAMP R4 (high) RA-5(1) RA-5(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (source) RA-5(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (low) (source) RA-5(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) RA-5(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) RA-5(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) (source) RA-5(2)
US IRS 1075 RA-5 RA-5(2)
US - TX DIR Control Standards 2.0 RA-5
US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 RA-5(1) RA-5(2)
EMEA (3)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 6.10.4
EMEA Germany C5 2020 PSS-03
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 22.7
APAC (2)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia Essential 8 ML1-P1 ML1-P2 ML2-P1 ML2-P2 ML3-P1 ML3-P2
APAC Australia ISM June 2024 ISM-1808
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.11.02.C

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to update vulnerability scanning tools.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Attack Surface Management (ASM) is decentralized.
  • IT personnel apply software patches through an informal process.
  • Occasional vulnerability scanning is conducted on High Value Assets (HVAs).
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.
  • Administrative processes exist and technologies are configured update vulnerability scanning tools.
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.
  • Administrative processes exist and technologies are configured update vulnerability scanning tools.
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 update vulnerability scanning tools.

Assessment Objectives

  1. VPM-06.1_A01 the frequency at which to update system vulnerabilities to be scanned is defined.
  2. VPM-06.1_A02 system vulnerabilities to be scanned are updated per an organization-defined frequency.
  3. VPM-06.1_A03 system vulnerabilities to be scanned are updated when new vulnerabilities are identified and reported.
  4. VPM-06.1_A04 system vulnerabilities to be scanned are updated <A.03.11.02.ODP[04]: frequency>.

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.