Safeguard 7.2: Establish and Maintain a Remediation Process

Safeguard 7.2 requires you to run a documented, repeatable remediation process that turns security findings into tracked tickets with owners, due dates, retest evidence, and management visibility. To operationalize it fast, standardize intake, prioritization, SLA targets, exception handling, and closure criteria across vulnerability, configuration, audit, and incident findings. ¹

Key takeaways:

• A “remediation process” means end-to-end workflow: intake → triage → assign → fix → validate → close, with audit-ready evidence. ¹
• Auditors will test operation, not intent: show tickets, timestamps, approvals, and verification proof tied to real findings. ²
• The fastest path is to map 7.2 to a control owner and recurring evidence capture, then drive everything through one system of record. ¹

Compliance teams rarely fail because they can’t find issues; they fail because issues don’t get fixed in a controlled, provable way. Safeguard 7.2: establish and maintain a remediation process requirement is your mandate to make remediation a managed business process, not an ad hoc scramble. The control is framework-level (CIS Controls v8), but it behaves like a hard operational requirement in exams, customer security reviews, and internal audits: you must be able to show what you found, what you did, when you did it, who approved risk decisions, and how you validated closure. ¹

For a CCO, Compliance Officer, or GRC lead, the operational win is consistency. You want one intake and tracking model that works for vulnerability scanning results, penetration test findings, cloud misconfigurations, audit issues, third-party security findings, and incident postmortem actions. You also want a clean line of sight from a finding to a ticket, to a change, to proof of validation, to closure. ²

This page gives requirement-level implementation guidance you can put into production quickly: roles, workflow, evidence, audit questions, common pitfalls, and a practical 30/60/90-day plan.

Regulatory text

Framework requirement (excerpt): “CIS Controls v8 safeguard 7.2 implementation expectation (Establish and Maintain a Remediation Process).” ¹

Operator meaning: You must define, document, and run a consistent remediation workflow for security findings, with clear ownership and traceable proof that fixes were completed and verified. This is an operational control: assessors will expect to see real remediation records, not just a policy statement. ¹

What the operator must do:

• Maintain a documented process that covers intake, prioritization, assignment, fix implementation, validation, and closure criteria. ¹
• Keep recurring evidence that the process operates as designed (tickets, approvals, retest results, exception records). ²
• Map Safeguard 7.2 to a documented control operation and recurring evidence capture so the program survives staff changes and scales across teams. ¹

Plain-English interpretation

You need a “factory line” for fixing security problems. Any material finding must enter the same controlled workflow, get a business-prioritized due date, be assigned to a responsible owner, be fixed via change control where appropriate, and be validated by retest or other objective verification before closure. ¹

Remediation is more than patching. It includes configuration changes, compensating controls, code fixes, access removals, policy changes, and third-party actions. Your process must also handle cases where you can’t fix something quickly: you need a formal exception or risk acceptance path with approvals and an expiration or review trigger. ²

Who it applies to

Entities: Any enterprise or technology organization adopting CIS Controls v8, including regulated organizations using CIS as the “how” behind broader obligations. ¹

Operational contexts where 7.2 gets tested hard:

• Vulnerability management programs (scanner findings, patch gaps, unsupported software).
• Cloud and SaaS security (misconfigurations, identity exposures, logging gaps).
• Internal audit / SOC reports (control deficiencies requiring corrective actions).
• Incident response lessons learned (post-incident corrective actions).
• Third-party security findings (supplier remediation commitments you must track).

If you rely on third parties for infrastructure, development, SOC, or managed scanning, 7.2 still applies. The remediation system must show what the third party fixed and how you validated it.

What you actually need to do (step-by-step)

1) Define scope and intake sources

Create a short “Remediation Intake Standard” that lists the sources that must feed the remediation process, such as:

• Vulnerability scanners and patch reports
• Pen test / red team findings
• Cloud security posture findings
• Security incidents and postmortems
• Audit issues and control testing failures
• Third-party security findings that require your action

Operational rule: if it’s a security finding that requires action, it becomes a remediation record in the system of record. ¹

2) Choose a single system of record

Pick one platform to hold the lifecycle: ticketing system, GRC workflow, or a dedicated remediation tracker. The tooling matters less than the controls around it:

• Unique ID per finding
• Status workflow (New → Triaged → Assigned → In progress → Ready for validation → Closed)
• Immutable timestamps or clear audit trail
• Ability to attach evidence and approvals ²

Daydream fits naturally here when you want the control mapped to a documented operation with recurring evidence capture and assessment-ready exports, without building custom reporting every quarter. ¹

3) Establish severity-based prioritization and due-date targets

Define a prioritization method that your technical teams will follow consistently (for example, based on exploitability, asset criticality, and exposure). Then define internal due-date targets by priority. Treat these as governance targets, not “guarantees,” and allow exceptions through a controlled workflow. ¹

Minimum fields to enforce:

• Finding severity/priority
• Asset/service owner
• Remediation owner (person/team)
• Target due date
• Business/system impact notes
• Required validation method (retest, config check, log proof)

4) Assign clear roles (RACI)

Set a RACI that matches how work gets done:

• Control owner (GRC/Security): owns the process design, reporting, and evidence quality.
• Remediation owner (IT/Ops/Engineering): implements fixes.
• Validator (Security/QA): verifies closure evidence is objective.
• Approver (Risk owner): approves exceptions and risk acceptance. ²

5) Define closure criteria and validation standards

Write closure criteria that prevent “paper closure.” Require one of:

• Retest result (scanner clean or pen test validation)
• Configuration evidence (before/after config, policy diff, IaC merge request)
• Log/telemetry evidence (control enabled and generating expected events)
• Access review evidence (account removed, group membership change, approval)

If validation can’t happen immediately (common for third parties), require documented follow-up checks and a due date for verification.

6) Build exception and risk acceptance workflow

Your process must support reality: sometimes a fix breaks a business service. Create an exception path with:

• Reason and scope (system, control gap, affected data)
• Compensating control (if any)
• Approver (risk owner, not the implementer)
• Expiration or review trigger
• Plan to remediate later (if applicable)

Auditors often accept risk decisions; they do not accept undocumented, indefinite deferrals. ¹

7) Reporting and management oversight

Define a cadence for management visibility:

• Open findings by priority and aging
• Overdue items and escalations
• Exceptions inventory and upcoming expirations
• Reopened findings (quality indicator)

Keep the report format stable so it becomes recurring evidence of control operation. ²

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep evidence that proves the process runs and fixes are validated:

Governance artifacts

• Remediation process document (workflow, roles, severity model, closure criteria) ¹
• Exception/risk acceptance procedure and approval matrix ¹
• Ticket field definitions and workflow states (export or screenshots)

Operational evidence (sample-based, but consistent)

• A list/export of remediation tickets for the review period
• For sampled tickets: assignment, due date, change records, fix evidence, validation proof, closure timestamp
• Retest outputs or verification artifacts attached to the ticket
• Monthly/quarterly remediation KPI reports and meeting notes showing oversight ²

Mapping evidence

• A control narrative mapping Safeguard 7.2 to the documented operation and recurring evidence capture plan ¹

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Auditors and customer assessors tend to ask the same things:

• “Show me your remediation process documentation and who owns it.” ¹
• “How do findings enter the process? Is intake complete across sources?”
• “How do you set priorities and due dates? What triggers escalation?”
• “Show closure evidence. How do you prevent self-attestation?”
• “How do you manage exceptions and risk acceptance? Who approves?”
• “Can you prove the process ran consistently across the period under review?” ²

Hangup to anticipate: teams close tickets without objective validation, or evidence lives in chat threads and can’t be reproduced.

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake	Why it fails	Fix
Policy-only remediation process	No operational proof	Require tickets + validation artifacts for closure. 1
Multiple trackers per team	Gaps, duplicates, no oversight	One system of record; allow team views, not team-owned processes.
Due dates set but not enforced	Overdue risk accumulates silently	Add escalation rules and overdue reporting to leadership.
Exceptions handled informally	“Permanent” deferrals with no approval	Formal exception workflow with approver and review trigger.
Closure without retest	Findings return; audits fail sampling	Define acceptable validation methods per finding type.

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for this requirement. Even without enforcement examples, the risk is straightforward: weak remediation governance turns known issues into repeat findings, incident root causes, and failed customer security reviews. CIS Controls v8 frames 7.2 as an implementation expectation because remediation is the bridge between detection and risk reduction. ¹

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days (Immediate stabilization)

• Name a 7.2 control owner and publish a remediation workflow draft. ¹
• Inventory intake sources and decide what must feed the tracker.
• Pick the system of record and standardize required ticket fields.
• Define closure criteria and the minimum validation evidence per finding category.

By 60 days (Operational rollout)

• Migrate or link existing findings into the system of record.
• Train remediation owners and validators; enforce “no evidence, no closure.”
• Start exception workflow with approval matrix and review triggers.
• Produce the first management remediation report and log decisions/actions taken. ²

By 90 days (Audit-ready operation)

• Run a sampling-based internal QA: pick a set of closed tickets and verify evidence quality end-to-end.
• Tune prioritization rules and escalation based on bottlenecks.
• Lock recurring evidence capture: scheduled exports, dashboards, and a standing review meeting. ¹
• If you use Daydream, configure the control mapping and automate recurring evidence collection for 7.2 so audit requests become exports, not fire drills. ¹

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Safeguard 7.2 require a specific tool (Jira, ServiceNow, a GRC platform)?

No. It requires a documented process with consistent operation and evidence. Use a tool that can enforce workflow states, ownership, due dates, and attachment of validation proof. ¹

What counts as “validation” for closing a remediation item?

Validation must be objective: a retest result, configuration proof, change record evidence, or other verifiable artifact attached to the ticket. Define acceptable validation methods by finding type so closure is consistent. ²

How do we handle third-party remediation when the fix is on the supplier’s side?

Track the finding in your system of record with the third party as a dependent owner, set due dates, and require written confirmation plus your own verification where possible. If you can’t verify directly, document the verification method you used and schedule follow-up checks.

Are risk acceptances allowed under 7.2?

Yes, but they must be explicit, approved by an appropriate risk owner, and traceable with scope and review triggers. Undocumented or indefinite deferrals will fail control testing. ¹

What’s the minimum evidence to retain for audits?

Keep the remediation process document, a population list of findings/tickets for the period, and for sampled items: assignment, due date history, fix evidence, validation proof, and closure timestamps. Add exception approvals where applicable. ²

How do we prove the process is “maintained,” not a one-time cleanup?

Show recurring operation: periodic reports, review meeting artifacts, consistent ticket lifecycle records, and evidence that new findings continue to enter and exit the process under the same rules. Mapping 7.2 to recurring evidence capture makes this easy to demonstrate. ¹

Footnotes

1. CIS Controls v8

2. CIS Controls Navigator v8