Safeguard 7.7: Remediate Detected Vulnerabilities

Safeguard 7.7 requires you to fix vulnerabilities you find, not just scan for them. To operationalize it, run a documented vulnerability remediation workflow that assigns ownership, sets remediation targets by severity and exposure, verifies fixes, and retains repeatable evidence that remediation happens consistently across in-scope assets ¹.

Key takeaways:

• You need a closed-loop process: detect → triage → remediate → verify → report ².
• Auditors look for proof of timely remediation and exception handling, not just scanning output ³.
• The fastest path is mapping 7.7 to an operating control with recurring evidence capture and clear accountability ¹.

“Safeguard 7.7: remediate detected vulnerabilities requirement” sits in the part of CIS Controls v8 where many programs fail in practice: teams can produce scan results, but cannot demonstrate consistent remediation. For a Compliance Officer, CCO, or GRC lead, the operational objective is simple: if your tools or testing identify a weakness, you must be able to show who fixed it, when it was fixed, how you validated the fix, and what you did when you couldn’t fix it quickly (for example, compensating controls and accepted risk).

This is not a tooling requirement. It is an execution and evidence requirement. You can meet 7.7 with different stacks (scanner, ticketing, CMDB/asset inventory), but you cannot meet it without (1) defined scope, (2) defined SLAs or remediation targets, (3) an exception path, and (4) durable artifacts that show the workflow runs repeatedly.

This page gives requirement-level guidance you can implement quickly: who owns what, what to build, what evidence to retain, common audit traps, and a practical 30/60/90-day plan aligned to CIS Controls v8 and CIS Controls Navigator v8 ¹.

Regulatory text

Framework requirement (excerpt): “CIS Controls v8 safeguard 7.7 implementation expectation (Remediate Detected Vulnerabilities).” ¹

Operator interpretation: CIS expects that once vulnerabilities are identified, you run a repeatable remediation process to reduce risk. For operators, “remediate” means more than opening tickets. You must drive vulnerabilities to closure (or documented exception), validate the fix, and be able to prove the process works over time with consistent evidence ¹.

Plain-English interpretation

• You scan, test, or otherwise detect vulnerabilities on in-scope assets.
• You prioritize what matters most based on severity and exposure.
• You fix issues, verify fixes, and record outcomes.
• If you cannot fix something promptly, you document risk acceptance and compensating controls and track it to closure.

Who it applies to

Entity types: Enterprises and technology organizations adopting CIS Controls v8 ¹.

Operational context (where 7.7 usually lands):

• Security operations and infrastructure teams that patch OS, network devices, containers, and cloud services.
• Application owners and engineering teams that remediate code and dependency vulnerabilities.
• ITSM/change management teams that control production changes and emergency fixes.
• GRC teams that set remediation policy, define evidence requirements, and run oversight reporting.
• Third parties, where you rely on suppliers to remediate vulnerabilities that affect your environment (for example, SaaS platforms, MSP-managed devices, or hosted applications). Even though the third party performs the fix, you still need governance and proof that remediation occurs.

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

1) Define “detected vulnerability” sources and scope

Create a short list of systems and signals that feed the remediation process:

• Vulnerability scanners (infrastructure and cloud)
• SAST/DAST and dependency scanning outputs (if applicable)
• Pen test findings
• Bug bounty submissions (if applicable)
• Configuration findings that represent exploitable weaknesses (where your program treats them as vulnerabilities)

Deliverable: a scope statement that ties “detected vulnerabilities” to your asset inventory and environments (prod vs. non-prod) ².

2) Standardize intake into a single work queue

Pick one system of record for remediation work (often ITSM). Require that each vulnerability record includes:

• Asset identifier (hostname/cloud resource/app)
• Environment (prod/non-prod)
• Severity and scoring source (scanner rating is fine if consistent)
• Evidence reference (scan ID, finding ID, report section)
• Owner team and remediation target date
• Status model (New → Triaged → In Progress → Fixed → Verified → Closed; plus Exception)

Control objective: no “orphan findings” sitting only in scanner dashboards ³.

3) Triage and prioritize with a written decision rubric

Create a one-page rubric that determines priority using factors your auditors can understand:

• Technical severity (critical/high/medium/low)
• External exposure (internet-facing, partner-facing, internal-only)
• Asset criticality (customer data, regulated data, revenue systems)
• Known exploitation (if your intel sources flag it)

Practical tip: Keep the rubric stable. If you change it, version it and record the effective date. Audits fail when priorities look subjective week to week.

4) Assign ownership and remediation paths

Define who fixes what:

• OS and endpoint teams patch OS-level CVEs
• Network team patches appliances and firmware
• Cloud platform team fixes cloud service configurations
• App teams fix application and library issues

Write down escalation rules for “no owner found.” In practice, this is where remediation stalls.

5) Set remediation targets and exception handling

CIS does not give you a universal SLA in the excerpt provided. You still need internal targets to prove you manage remediation consistently ².

Define:

• Remediation target windows by severity and exposure (your policy choice)
• The exception path, including:
  • Required business justification
  • Compensating controls (segmenting, WAF rules, disabling vulnerable feature, removing exposure)
  • Approval authority (risk owner)
  • Review cadence and expiry date for the exception

Evidence goal: every open high-risk finding is either actively being fixed or has an approved, time-bound exception with compensating controls.

6) Implement verification (don’t trust “fixed” status)

Verification options:

• Rescan confirmation for infrastructure vulnerabilities
• CI/CD pipeline evidence for dependency updates
• Config state validation for cloud controls
• Retest evidence for pen test findings

Minimum bar: “Closed” means verified, not just “patched” in a ticket comment ³.

7) Establish oversight reporting and recurring evidence capture

Your GRC function needs recurring, reviewable outputs:

• Open vulnerabilities by severity and age (based on your internal targets)
• Overdue items and owner teams
• Exceptions inventory with expiry dates
• Trend reporting that shows the process runs repeatedly

This is where mapping 7.7 to a documented control operation and recurring evidence capture pays off ¹. In Daydream, teams typically implement 7.7 as a control with scheduled evidence requests (scan-to-ticket samples, closure proof, exception register snapshots) and a single audit-ready record of operation.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep evidence lightweight but consistent. Auditors reward repeatability.

Control design artifacts (static):

• Vulnerability management and remediation policy (includes targets and exceptions) ²
• Triage/prioritization rubric (version-controlled)
• RACI for remediation ownership
• System inventory or in-scope asset list reference

Control operating evidence (recurring samples):

• Scan reports or exports showing detected vulnerabilities (sampled)
• Tickets created from findings with timestamps, ownership, and due dates
• Change records linked to remediation (where required)
• Verification evidence (rescan results, retest notes, pipeline logs)
• Exception register entries and approvals
• Monthly/quarterly management review notes and action items

Retention approach: retain enough to show continuous operation across multiple cycles and teams. Store in an evidence repository with immutable timestamps if possible.

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Auditors and assessors commonly ask:

1. “Show me the lifecycle from detection to verified remediation for a sample of high-severity findings.” Have 5–10 complete stories ready (scan → ticket → fix → verification).
2. “How do you ensure nothing falls through the cracks?” Demonstrate reconciliations between scanner findings and tickets.
3. “What happens when a team can’t patch?” Show the exception workflow with compensating controls and expiry.
4. “How do you prioritize?” Provide your rubric and examples where exposure/criticality changed the priority.
5. “How do you govern third-party remediation?” Show contractual/security requirements, attestations, or tracked supplier notifications and closure evidence where available.

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake	Why it fails	Fix
Scanning without closure discipline	You can’t prove remediation, only detection 2	Enforce ticket creation and verified closure for in-scope findings
“Fixed” without verification	Findings reappear and audits flag weak control operation	Require rescan/retest evidence before closure
No exception process	Teams quietly accept risk with no governance	Create time-bound exceptions with risk-owner approval
Ambiguous ownership	Items sit unassigned	Define RACI and escalation for unknown owners
Reporting that hides overdue items	Metrics look good but reality doesn’t	Report overdue and exceptions explicitly to leadership

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for this requirement, so you should treat enforcement risk as indirect. The practical risk is operational: unremediated vulnerabilities increase the likelihood of compromise, and weak evidence trails create assessment failures during customer audits and security reviews ¹.

A practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days (stabilize the workflow)

• Publish a short remediation standard: scope, severity model, ownership, targets, and exceptions ².
• Choose the system of record for remediation work and standardize required fields.
• Start sampling: pick a small set of recent findings and drive them to verified closure with full evidence.

Days 31–60 (scale across teams and assets)

• Integrate scanner outputs with ticket creation (automation preferred, manual acceptable if consistent).
• Implement verification gates for closure.
• Stand up recurring reporting: overdue, exceptions, and trend snapshots for leadership review.

Days 61–90 (make it audit-ready)

• Run a reconciliation control: scanner findings vs. tickets for a defined period, investigate mismatches.
• Formalize exception reviews and expirations.
• Implement recurring evidence capture in Daydream (or your GRC tool) so each cycle produces an audit packet aligned to 7.7 ¹.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Safeguard 7.7 require a specific vulnerability scanner?

No. CIS Controls v8 sets an implementation expectation to remediate detected vulnerabilities, not a specific product requirement ². Auditors will focus on your closed-loop workflow and evidence.

What counts as “remediated” for audit purposes?

Remediated means the vulnerability is fixed and you verified the fix (for example, rescan or retest evidence). If you cannot fix it, an approved, time-bound exception with compensating controls is the acceptable alternative record.

How do I handle vulnerabilities owned by a third party (SaaS, MSP, supplier)?

Track the issue in your system of record, document the third party as the owner, and retain communications or attestations that show remediation or mitigation. If remediation is delayed, record compensating controls and an exception decision by your internal risk owner.

Do I need remediation SLAs to meet this requirement?

CIS does not provide a numeric SLA in the provided excerpt ². You still need internal remediation targets to demonstrate consistent prioritization and governance during audits.

What evidence is most persuasive in an assessment?

End-to-end samples: a detected finding, a ticket with ownership and due date, the change/fix record, and verification proof. Add a management report showing oversight and exceptions tracked over time.

How can Daydream help without becoming “another tool” for engineers?

Keep engineering in ITSM and scanners, and use Daydream for control mapping, recurring evidence requests, and audit-ready packets that prove 7.7 operates consistently ¹.

Footnotes

1. CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8

2. CIS Controls v8

3. CIS Controls Navigator v8