Annex A 8.8: Management Of Technical Vulnerabilities

Annex a 8.8: management of technical vulnerabilities requirement means you must run a repeatable, evidenced process to identify relevant technical vulnerabilities, assess risk and exposure, and remediate through patching, configuration changes, compensating controls, or formal exception handling. Operationalize it with clear ownership, intake sources, SLAs, change control, and audit-ready records. ¹

Key takeaways:

• Maintain an end-to-end vulnerability management process from identification to remediation and verification, with documented decisions.
• Prove operation with recurring evidence: scan outputs, triage records, remediation tickets, exceptions, and closure verification.
• Tie vulnerability work to asset inventory, change management, incident response, and third-party governance to prevent “scan-and-forget” failures.

Annex A 8.8 sits in the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 technology control set and is one of the fastest ways auditors test whether your ISMS runs in production or only on paper. The control expects a managed lifecycle for technical vulnerabilities: you watch for new issues, determine what matters to your environment, and fix or mitigate them in a controlled, trackable way. ¹

For a Compliance Officer, CCO, or GRC lead, the practical challenge is not choosing a scanner. It is building a governance and evidence model that holds up when someone asks: “How do you know you saw the vulnerability, assessed it, acted on it, and verified closure?” Auditors also look for consistency across infrastructure, endpoints, cloud, and applications, plus realistic handling of exceptions where patching is not possible.

This page gives requirement-level implementation guidance you can put into motion immediately: scope and applicability, step-by-step operating procedures, artifacts to retain, common audit questions, and an execution plan you can run with your security and IT owners.

Regulatory text

Requirement (framework excerpt): “ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A control 8.8 implementation expectation (Management Of Technical Vulnerabilities).” ¹

What the operator must do: implement and operate a documented process to:

• Identify technical vulnerabilities relevant to your systems (software, hardware, cloud services, configurations).
• Evaluate exposure and risk in the context of your environment.
• Remediate in a controlled manner (patch, configuration change, upgrade, remove component, or apply compensating controls).
• Track to closure and retain evidence that the process runs on an ongoing basis. ¹

Plain-English interpretation (what auditors expect)

Auditors rarely fail organizations for having the “wrong” vulnerability tool. They fail organizations for gaps in control operation:

• You cannot show you consistently discover vulnerabilities across your asset population.
• Findings do not flow into triage and remediation with ownership and timelines.
• You have no disciplined exception process (risk acceptance, deferral, compensating controls).
• You cannot prove verification (rescans, validation, deployment evidence).
• Evidence exists once (a screenshot) but not as a repeatable cadence. ¹

Treat Annex A 8.8 as a governance requirement: define the lifecycle, define decision rights, and preserve the trail.

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

Entity types: service organizations and any organization operating an ISMS aligned to ISO/IEC 27001. ²

Operational scope (typical):

• Corporate endpoints (managed laptops/desktops, mobile where applicable).
• Servers and network devices (on-prem and hosted).
• Cloud resources (IaaS/PaaS configs, images, container hosts).
• Applications and supporting components (web apps, APIs, libraries, runtimes) where you can reasonably identify technical vulnerabilities. ¹

Third parties (critical edge): If third parties host or operate parts of your environment, you still need governance: intake of third-party vulnerability notifications, contract expectations for remediation, and evidence that you tracked the issue to closure or applied compensating controls.

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

Use this as your minimum viable operating model. Assign an owner for each step and make the handoffs explicit.

1) Define scope and asset coverage

1. Set system boundaries: what networks, cloud accounts/subscriptions, endpoint fleets, and apps are in-scope for vulnerability management.
2. Define the asset source of truth (CMDB, cloud inventory, endpoint management, or a reconciled inventory view).
3. Classify assets (criticality, internet exposure, data sensitivity) so triage can reflect business context.

Deliverable: vulnerability management standard + scope statement tied to your inventory.

2) Establish vulnerability intake channels

Build a single queue for “things we must evaluate,” fed by:

• Authenticated vulnerability scans (infrastructure and endpoints).
• Cloud posture findings (misconfigurations that present technical exposure).
• SAST/DAST and dependency alerts (for application components).
• Vendor/security advisories for key products you run.
• Third-party notifications affecting your environment. ¹

Control tip: document which channels are required for which asset classes so coverage is testable.

3) Triage: validate, enrich, and decide

For each finding:

1. Validate (remove false positives where justified).
2. Enrich with asset context (owner, environment, exposure, compensating controls already present).
3. Assess risk using your internal methodology (CVSS alone is not a business decision; treat it as an input).
4. Choose a treatment path:
   • Remediate (patch/upgrade/config).
   • Mitigate (segmentation, WAF rule, feature disablement, hardening).
   • Remove/replace the vulnerable component.
   • Accept/approve an exception with rationale and review date.

Deliverable: a triage record per material finding, captured in a ticketing or GRC workflow.

4) Remediate through controlled change

1. Create remediation work items (tickets) with clear owners (IT Ops, Cloud Ops, App team).
2. Route changes through change management when production-impacting.
3. Coordinate maintenance windows and test plans.
4. Handle emergency fixes via your emergency change path, but keep the record.

Where teams slip: fixes happen “out of band” (someone patches quickly) and the ticket never reflects evidence or closure.

5) Verify and close (don’t skip this)

Closure requires proof, not intent:

• Rescan results showing the vulnerability no longer appears, or
• Configuration baselines confirming a setting change, or
• Deployment logs showing updated package/library version, plus follow-up validation.

Deliverable: closure evidence attached to the ticket or stored in a control evidence repository.

6) Exception and risk acceptance workflow

You need a documented method to defer or accept risk:

• What qualifies for an exception.
• Who can approve (system owner + security + risk/compliance, as appropriate).
• Required compensating controls.
• Review cadence and expiry/renewal rules.
• Trigger events for re-review (new exploit, asset becomes internet-facing, major version change).

Artifact: exception register with approvals and review outcomes.

7) Metrics and recurring governance

Keep metrics simple and audit-relevant:

• Aging by severity/priority (open items by time open).
• Coverage (assets scanned vs. in-scope inventory).
• Exception volume and overdue reviews.
• Reopened items due to recurrence.

Use these in a recurring security governance meeting. Document decisions and follow-ups.

8) Make evidence capture automatic

Annex A 8.8 often fails on “missing implementation evidence.” Bake evidence capture into the workflow:

• Scanner exports land in a controlled folder.
• Tickets require fields for severity, owner, due date, disposition, and closure evidence.
• Exceptions cannot be approved without compensating controls and a review date. ¹

If you use Daydream, map Annex A 8.8 directly to your vulnerability management control narrative and set recurring evidence requests (scan summaries, remediation reports, exception register extracts) so you are never reconstructing the story during audit season.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep artifacts in a form that an auditor can sample, trace, and re-perform.

Artifact	What it proves	Owner
Vulnerability Management Policy/Standard	Defined process and roles	Security/GRC
Scope statement + in-scope inventory view	Coverage expectations	IT/SecOps
Scan schedules/configs + tool screenshots/config exports	Control is configured	SecOps
Raw scan outputs (dated)	Findings exist over time	SecOps
Triage records (tickets)	Decisions are documented	SecOps + IT/App owners
Remediation tickets with change references	Fixes were executed under control	IT/DevOps
Closure verification (rescan/validation)	Issues were actually resolved	SecOps/QA
Exception register with approvals and reviews	Managed risk acceptance	GRC/Risk
Recurring metrics reports + meeting notes	Ongoing governance	Security leadership

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect these and prepare the evidence trail:

1. “How do you know all in-scope assets are scanned?” Auditors look for reconciliation between inventory and scan coverage.
2. “Show me one critical finding end-to-end.” They will trace: detection → triage → fix → verification.
3. “How do you decide remediation priority?” They want a documented method, not a person’s memory.
4. “What happens when you can’t patch?” They expect a formal exception with compensating controls and review.
5. “How do third parties factor in?” They want intake and tracking of third-party advisories and incidents that affect you.

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

• Mistake: vulnerability scans run, but nothing tracks remediation.
  Fix: require tickets for material findings; auto-create tickets from tools where possible.

• Mistake: CVSS drives everything without context.
  Fix: enrich with exposure and asset criticality, then document the priority decision.

• Mistake: no proof of closure.
  Fix: make verification a required ticket field; close only with a rescan or objective validation.

• Mistake: exceptions become permanent.
  Fix: require expiry/review dates and periodic review evidence.

• Mistake: cloud misconfigurations treated as “not vulnerabilities.”
  Fix: include cloud posture and configuration weaknesses in the intake channels and triage model. ¹

Enforcement context and risk implications

ISO/IEC 27001 is a certifiable standard, not a regulator, so “enforcement” typically shows up as audit nonconformities, surveillance audit findings, certification delays, or customer-driven contractual findings. Operationally, weak vulnerability management increases the chance that known issues remain exposed long enough to be exploited, and it raises breach impact if attackers chain unpatched systems with weak segmentation.

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

Use this as a fast operational rollout. Adjust sequencing to your engineering realities.

First 30 days (stand up governance and evidence)

• Assign control owner, RACI, and escalation path for overdue remediation.
• Define scope and reconcile an initial in-scope asset list.
• Document intake sources and ensure findings can be centralized.
• Create the ticket workflow (required fields, closure evidence requirement).
• Stand up an exception register and approval workflow.

Days 31–60 (prove operation on a sample and close gaps)

• Run scans across priority segments and generate initial backlog.
• Triage findings with documented dispositions and remediation ownership.
• Push remediation through change management for representative systems.
• Produce your first metrics pack and hold a governance review meeting.
• Run an internal audit-style sample: pick a finding and trace end-to-end.

Days 61–90 (scale coverage and harden control quality)

• Expand scanning to remaining in-scope assets and validate coverage reconciliation.
• Automate ticket creation and evidence capture where feasible.
• Normalize prioritization rules and publish a triage playbook.
• Review exceptions for quality and add compensating control checklists.
• Prepare an audit binder: policy, scope, last scan outputs, sample tickets, metrics, and exception register extracts.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do we need a specific vulnerability scanning tool to meet Annex A 8.8?

No tool is mandated by ISO/IEC 27001. Auditors focus on whether you can consistently identify relevant vulnerabilities, act on them, verify closure, and retain evidence of operation. ²

Can we meet the requirement if patching is handled informally by IT?

Informal patching usually fails on evidence and consistency. You need a trackable workflow that shows triage decisions, remediation actions, and verification, plus exceptions when patching is not possible. ³

How should we handle vulnerabilities in third-party hosted systems (SaaS/PaaS)?

Treat them as an intake channel: collect advisories or third-party notifications, assess your exposure, and document actions (configuration changes, feature toggles, compensating controls, or vendor follow-up). Retain tickets and correspondence as evidence.

What evidence is most persuasive in an ISO 27001 audit?

End-to-end samples. Provide dated scan outputs, the triage ticket, the remediation or change record, and a rescan/validation artifact showing closure, plus an exception record when applicable.

Do cloud misconfigurations count as “technical vulnerabilities” for 8.8?

If a configuration weakness creates technical exposure, treat it as in-scope for the vulnerability management lifecycle. Route it through the same triage, remediation, and verification workflow. ³

How does Daydream help operationalize Annex A 8.8 quickly?

Daydream helps you map Annex A 8.8 to a documented control narrative and set recurring evidence capture so scan summaries, remediation reporting, and the exception register are consistently collected and audit-ready. ¹

Footnotes

1. ISO/IEC 27001 overview; ISMS.online Annex A control index

2. ISO/IEC 27001 overview

3. ISMS.online Annex A control index