SI-2(1): Central Management

To meet the si-2(1): central management requirement, you need a centrally governed, consistently enforced method to manage flaw remediation (patches, updates, and related actions) across all in-scope systems, with clear ownership and repeatable evidence. Operationally, that means standard tooling, standard workflows, and centralized reporting that proves coverage, timeliness, and exceptions. ¹

Key takeaways:

• Centralize patch and remediation governance so teams cannot “do it their own way” without visibility. ¹
• Prove control operation with recurring artifacts: system inventory scope, tool configurations, patch SLAs, exception approvals, and remediation reports. ¹
• Audits fail most often on evidence gaps and unmanaged exceptions, not on the existence of a patch tool. ¹

SI-2 is the NIST SP 800-53 “Flaw Remediation” control family. The SI-2(1) enhancement, Central Management, tightens expectations by focusing on consistency: you cannot rely on scattered team-by-team patching practices and still claim predictable, assessable remediation. A CCO or GRC lead should read this as an operational governance requirement: a centralized function (or centrally governed platform) must direct how remediation is prioritized, deployed, tracked, and evidenced across the environment. ²

This requirement shows up in federal systems and contractor systems handling federal data, especially where system diversity (multiple OS families, cloud services, endpoints, appliances) tends to fragment ownership. Assessors typically look for a single way to answer basic questions: “What’s in scope?”, “What is the current remediation state?”, “Who approved the exceptions?”, and “Can you prove it over time?” ¹

The rest of this page is written to help you implement fast: define scope, assign ownership, standardize tooling and workflow, then build an evidence cadence that survives audits and incident postmortems. Daydream fits naturally as the place you map SI-2(1) to an owner, procedures, and recurring evidence artifacts so the control stays in an “always ready” posture. ¹

What SI-2(1): Central Management means (plain English)

SI-2(1) requires centralized management of flaw remediation activities across the systems in scope. Central management does not mean every patch is pushed by one person. It means you have a centrally defined, centrally enforced standard for:

• What must be remediated (classification and prioritization of flaws)
• When it must be remediated (organizational timelines and emergency handling)
• How it must be remediated (approved tools, methods, and validation)
• How you know it happened (central reporting, dashboards, and exception traceability)
  ¹

A practical test: if you cannot generate an enterprise-wide remediation status report without asking multiple teams to export spreadsheets, you likely do not meet the intent.

Regulatory text

The provided excerpt is: “NIST SP 800-53 control SI-2.1.” ¹

Operator translation of what you must do for si-2(1): central management requirement:

1. Designate a central authority that governs flaw remediation, including standards, timelines, and exception handling. ¹
2. Implement centralized mechanisms (tools and processes) to deploy and track remediation across in-scope assets. ¹
3. Retain evidence that the centralized approach is operating: coverage, compliance status, exceptions, and remediation outcomes. ¹

Who it applies to (entity + operational context)

Applies to:

• Federal information systems implementing NIST SP 800-53 controls. ¹
• Contractor systems handling federal data, where NIST SP 800-53 is contractually flowed down or used as the security control baseline. ¹

Operationally, SI-2(1) matters most when you have:

• Multiple IT teams (cloud, endpoint, network, app, OT) with different remediation habits
• Mixed environments (on-prem + multiple clouds)
• Third parties operating parts of your stack (managed service providers, SaaS admins, hosting providers)
  ²

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

Step 1: Set governance and ownership

1. Name a control owner for SI-2(1) (often SecOps, IT Ops, or Vulnerability Management) and document decision rights. ¹
2. Define the central remediation standard: severity taxonomy, remediation timelines, testing requirements, reboot rules, maintenance windows, and emergency process. ¹
3. Define exception policy: who can approve, what evidence is required (business justification + compensating controls), and how exceptions expire. ¹

Practical note: central management fails if exceptions never expire or if app owners can self-approve.

Step 2: Establish authoritative scope (asset + system inventory alignment)

1. Document in-scope asset classes (servers, endpoints, network devices, containers, managed services). ¹
2. Tie remediation scope to an authoritative inventory (CMDB, cloud asset inventory, endpoint directory). If inventory is weak, document the interim approach and the plan to mature it. ²
3. Tag ownership for each asset group so remediation failures have an accountable team. ¹

Step 3: Standardize the “central mechanism” (tools + workflow)

Pick a model that fits your environment; auditors care that it is centralized and consistent:

• Central patch management for OS and endpoints (one platform or centrally governed platforms by OS family)
• Central vulnerability management (scanner + tracking system) integrated with ticketing
• Central configuration management for baseline and drift correction
  ¹

Minimum workflow you should implement:

1. Detect flaw (scanner alerts, vendor advisories, threat intel intake). ²
2. Triage and prioritize centrally (severity + exposure + business criticality). ²
3. Create remediation work item (ticket) with due date and owner. ¹
4. Deploy patch/fix through approved methods and log the action. ¹
5. Validate remediation centrally (rescan, agent confirmation, config state). ¹
6. Track exceptions centrally with expiry and compensating controls. ¹

Step 4: Central reporting (the make-or-break requirement)

Build repeatable reporting that answers:

• Coverage: which assets are managed centrally vs not
• Remediation status by severity and owner
• Overdue items and aging
• Exception list with approvals and expiry dates
• Evidence of validation (before/after state)
  ¹

If you can only report on “devices enrolled in tool X,” you need a reconciliation report against inventory to show what is missing.

Step 5: Operationalize with recurring evidence (assessment-ready cadence)

Create an evidence calendar:

• A recurring export or screenshot set of dashboards
• Ticket samples showing end-to-end lifecycle
• Exception register updates with approvals
• Meeting notes from remediation governance reviews (changes to policy, risk acceptances)
  ¹

Daydream is a practical place to map SI-2(1) to the control owner, implementation procedure, and the exact recurring artifacts you collect so evidence stays consistent across quarters. ¹

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep artifacts that prove both design and operation:

Design artifacts

• SI-2(1) procedure: central remediation workflow, roles, escalation path ¹
• Tooling standard: approved tools, required configurations, logging requirements ¹
• Exception/risk acceptance policy for remediation deferrals ²

Operating artifacts

• System/asset inventory extract showing in-scope coverage mapping ²
• Patch deployment logs or platform reports (by asset group) ¹
• Vulnerability scan results and rescan validation evidence ¹
• Ticket samples: creation → assignment → remediation → validation → closure ¹
• Exception register: approvals, compensating controls, expiry, review outcomes ¹

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect these questions:

• “Show me the central authority for flaw remediation. Who can approve deviations?” ¹
• “How do you know all systems are covered? What’s the authoritative inventory?” ²
• “Demonstrate remediation from detection through validation on a sample.” ¹
• “Show exceptions, and prove they are time-bound and reviewed.” ¹
• “How do third parties fit? Who patches managed hosts or SaaS configurations?” ²

Hangups that trigger findings:

• Conflicting reports between scanner, patch tool, and inventory
• “Emergency patching” performed outside the workflow with no evidence trail
• Exceptions approved in email/Slack and never centralized

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

1. Mistake: Equating central management with one tool.
   Fix: Define central management as governance + reporting. Multiple tools can pass if centrally governed and reconciled to inventory. ¹

2. Mistake: No authoritative scope.
   Fix: Publish an inventory-based coverage report. Track “unknown/unmanaged” assets as a remediation item. ²

3. Mistake: Exceptions become permanent.
   Fix: Require expiry dates, compensating controls, and re-approval on renewal. Keep it in one exception register. ¹

4. Mistake: Validation is informal (“it should be fine”).
   Fix: Require rescan or configuration confirmation and store it with the ticket. ¹

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided for this requirement in the source catalog, so this page does not list enforcement examples.

Risk-wise, SI-2(1) gaps create predictable failure modes: unpatched systems persist because no one can see them, and compensating controls are undocumented. During incidents, the inability to prove centralized remediation control also complicates root cause analysis and regulatory reporting narratives. ²

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days: Stand up the control skeleton

• Assign SI-2(1) control owner and document roles and approvals. ¹
• Define in-scope asset categories and map them to an authoritative inventory source. ²
• Publish the central remediation standard and exception workflow (even if tooling isn’t perfect yet). ¹

Days 31–60: Make it operational and measurable

• Configure central reporting: coverage vs inventory, remediation status, overdue items. ¹
• Integrate detection → ticketing → validation workflow for at least your highest-risk asset classes first. ²
• Start an exception register with expirations and approvals captured consistently. ¹

Days 61–90: Prove repeatability and close evidence gaps

• Run a recurring cadence: governance review, exception review, and evidence capture. ¹
• Perform an internal control test: sample tickets, verify validation, reconcile tool reports to inventory, document remediation of gaps. ²
• In Daydream, map SI-2(1) to the owner, procedure, and recurring artifacts so audits don’t depend on institutional memory. ¹

Frequently Asked Questions

Does SI-2(1) require a single patch tool across the whole company?

No. It requires centralized management of flaw remediation. You can use multiple tools if governance, reporting, and exception handling are centralized and reconciled to an authoritative inventory. ¹

What’s the minimum evidence an auditor will accept for “central management”?

A documented procedure with roles, centralized reporting that shows coverage and status, and work item samples that prove detection through validation and closure. Missing exception evidence is a common failure point. ¹

How do I handle SaaS where the provider controls patching?

Treat the provider as a third party responsibility boundary: document what the provider patches, what you configure, and how you monitor advisories and provider attestations. Central management still applies to your tracking, risk decisions, and evidence. ²

Can app teams approve their own patch exceptions?

They can provide business justification, but approvals should follow your central authority model with defined approvers and a documented exception register. Self-approval weakens central management and is hard to defend in assessments. ¹

What if my inventory is incomplete?

Document the current authoritative source, implement reconciliation reports between inventory and remediation tools, and track unknown assets as findings until resolved. Assessors look for controlled improvement and transparency, not perfection. ²

How does Daydream help with SI-2(1) specifically?

Daydream helps you map SI-2(1) to a named owner, a step-by-step procedure, and a recurring evidence list so you can produce consistent artifacts each cycle without rebuilding the audit narrative. ¹

Footnotes

1. NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 OSCAL JSON

2. NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5