RA-5(2): Update Vulnerabilities to Be Scanned

“Vulnerability scanning” fails quietly when the scanner’s detection logic is stale. RA-5(2): update vulnerabilities to be scanned requirement closes that gap by focusing on the content that drives detection: scanner engines, plugins, checks, signatures, and any vulnerability intelligence or configuration baselines used to identify exposures. The control is simple on paper: update the vulnerabilities to be scanned on a defined frequency. In practice, it touches patch/change management, endpoint and server operations, vulnerability management, and sometimes third-party hosted scanning services.

For a CCO, Compliance Officer, or GRC lead, the fastest path to operationalizing RA-5(2) is to treat it as a “content update” control with measurable outputs. You want a named owner, a documented update mechanism (how updates are obtained, tested, approved, and deployed), and evidence that updated content was in effect during scans. That evidence is what auditors ask for because it shows the control operates, not just that you own a scanner.

This page gives requirement-level implementation guidance to make RA-5(2) assessable and repeatable in a real environment, including step-by-step procedures, evidence artifacts, audit questions, and a practical execution plan aligned to NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5. ¹

Regulatory text

Requirement (excerpt): “Update the system vulnerabilities to be scanned {{ insert: param, ra-05.02_odp.01 }}.” ²

What an operator must do

• Define the update frequency for “vulnerabilities to be scanned” (the scanner’s detection content), then perform updates on that frequency. ²
• Make the updates applicable to the system (the environment under authorization boundary), meaning your scanning capability in that boundary is using updated content during scans. ¹
• Be able to prove it with records that show: (1) updates happened, (2) what changed (version/build/feed timestamp), and (3) scans ran with the updated content. ²

Practical reading: RA-5(2) is about “scanner content freshness.” A weekly scan that uses last quarter’s plugin set will not meet the intent.

Plain-English interpretation (what RA-5(2) really means)

RA-5(2): update vulnerabilities to be scanned requirement means you must keep your vulnerability scanning definitions current so the scanner recognizes new CVEs, new misconfiguration checks, and new detection logic as it is released. ²

This usually includes:

• Scanner plugins/signatures/checks (commercial or open-source)
• Scanner engine versions where detection logic is tied to the engine
• Authenticated scan checks that depend on agent packages or credentialed probing modules
• SCAP/OVAL content if you scan against configuration and vulnerability baselines ¹

The goal is operational: reduce the window where your tooling cannot detect known, relevant vulnerabilities because the tooling was not updated.

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

RA-5(2) commonly applies where NIST SP 800-53 is adopted as the control baseline, including:

• Federal information systems operating under an authorization boundary. ¹
• Contractor systems handling federal data (for example, environments supporting federal programs) where NIST 800-53 controls are flowed down contractually or mapped for assessment. ¹

Operationally, it applies to teams and systems involved in:

• Vulnerability management (VM) and security operations
• Infrastructure and endpoint operations (where scanners run and authenticate)
• Change management (because scanner updates can affect detection behavior and load)
• Third parties providing scanning (MSSP/hosted VM platforms), because you still need evidence and oversight ¹

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

Use the steps below as a control procedure you can hand to the VM owner and then assess against.

1) Establish scope and ownership

1. Name a control owner (typically Head of Vulnerability Management or Security Operations) and a backup.
2. List the scanning technologies in scope (network scanners, agent-based scanners, container/image scanners, SAST/DAST if used as “vulnerability scanning” in your program).
3. Document which technologies require content updates (plugins, signatures, templates, SCAP content, engine builds).

Deliverable: “RA-5(2) Procedure” with an in-scope tool inventory and owner.

2) Define “update frequency” and triggers

1. Set a recurring cadence for content updates (for each scanner type).
2. Define event-driven triggers for out-of-band updates (examples: critical vendor plugin releases, emergency change windows, or urgent vulnerability intelligence updates).
3. Align cadence with your change calendar and maintenance windows so updates do not get deferred indefinitely.

Deliverable: documented frequency statement inside your RA-5(2) procedure. ²

3) Implement a controlled update mechanism

1. Select the update source (vendor feed, on-prem update repository, offline update bundles for restricted networks).
2. Control the path: who can approve and deploy updates, where updates are staged, and how rollback works.
3. Record versions automatically where possible (scanner console export, API pull, or screenshot standard).

If you operate segmented enclaves, include an explicit step for content promotion from an internet-connected staging area to the enclave, with integrity checks consistent with your security architecture. ¹

4) Validate updates and confirm scans use them

1. After updating, run a verification scan (small representative target set) to confirm the scanner is functional and content is loaded.
2. Confirm the next scheduled scans show the updated plugin/signature set in their job metadata or report headers.
3. If your tooling supports it, alert on “content older than X” so staleness becomes visible.

Deliverable: verification scan report plus update log entry tied to the change/ticket.

5) Operationalize reporting and exception handling

1. Produce a regular compliance report showing update status for each scanner (content version and last update date/time).
2. Create an exception workflow for cases where updates cannot be applied (air-gapped systems, vendor outage, change freeze).
3. Time-box exceptions and require compensating controls (extra monitoring, targeted checks, or alternative scan methods) until updates resume.

Deliverable: exception register entries with approvals and closure evidence.

6) Map to control evidence and recurring artifacts (assessment-ready)

A common failure mode is “we do it, but we can’t prove it.” RA-5(2) expects operational evidence. ²

If you use Daydream to manage control operations, treat RA-5(2) as a recurring evidence control: assign an owner, define the evidence cadence, and centralize the artifacts (update logs, exports, and verification scans) so an assessor can test the control quickly.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Maintain evidence that answers three auditor questions: What is your requirement, did you do it, and did it affect scanning?

Evidence item	What it proves	Examples
RA-5(2) procedure (dated, approved)	Defined frequency and method	SOP in GRC, runbook in wiki with approval record
Scanner content update logs	Updates occurred	Console export showing plugin feed version and last sync time
Change tickets (as applicable)	Controlled deployment	CAB ticket, maintenance record, rollback plan
Verification scan output	Update is effective	“Known vulnerable test host” scan result; report header shows plugin set
Scheduled scan reports showing content version	Ongoing operation	Monthly or per-scan report metadata with plugin/version stamp
Exceptions register	Governance when updates fail	Approved exception + compensating actions + closure evidence

Tie each artifact to the system boundary and the tool instance in use. ¹

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect these questions during an assessment against NIST SP 800-53:

1. “What is the defined frequency in RA-5(2), and where is it documented?” ²
2. “Show me evidence of updates for the last several cycles.” Provide logs/exports, not just a statement.
3. “How do you know scans used the updated plugin set?” Show scan metadata/report headers tied to the update timestamps.
4. “How do restricted networks get updates?” Auditors look for a repeatable offline transfer process.
5. “What happens during a change freeze or vendor outage?” You need an exception path and compensating controls.

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

1. Mistake: Treating scan scheduling as the requirement.
   Fix: Separate “scan cadence” (RA-5 base control) from “content update cadence” (RA-5(2)) in your procedures and evidence. ²

2. Mistake: Updating the scanner console but not distributed scanners/agents.
   Fix: Inventory where detection logic lives (central vs. distributed) and collect evidence per component.

3. Mistake: No proof of version state at scan time.
   Fix: Configure reports/exports to include plugin/signature versions, or capture a standardized screenshot/export at each update.

4. Mistake: Air-gapped environments “planned” but not operational.
   Fix: Run at least one end-to-end content promotion cycle, document it, and retain the artifacts.

5. Mistake: Exceptions become permanent.
   Fix: Require explicit approvals, expiry, and periodic review of RA-5(2) exceptions.

Enforcement context and risk implications

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

From a risk standpoint, stale vulnerability content increases the chance that you miss newly disclosed weaknesses during routine scanning. That can cascade into delayed remediation, weak reporting to leadership, and hard-to-defend risk acceptances because you cannot demonstrate you were scanning for the relevant vulnerabilities. NIST frames RA-5 as part of a broader risk assessment and monitoring capability, so assessors typically treat RA-5(2) failures as a control operation gap rather than a paperwork issue. ¹

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days (stabilize and document)

• Assign RA-5(2) ownership and backup; document tool inventory and boundaries.
• Write the RA-5(2) procedure: frequency, triggers, update sources, validation steps. ²
• Configure at least one repeatable evidence capture method per scanner (export, API pull, or standardized screenshots).

Days 31–60 (operationalize and prove)

• Execute update cycles per procedure for each in-scope scanner type.
• Run verification scans post-update and store results with the update record.
• Stand up exception workflow (who approves, where tracked, minimum compensating actions).

Days 61–90 (harden and audit-proof)

• Automate reporting for “last updated” and “current content version” where feasible.
• Conduct an internal control test: sample updates, trace to scan jobs, confirm artifacts are complete.
• Add RA-5(2) to your continuous monitoring or GRC evidence calendar so it stays current between audits. ¹

Frequently Asked Questions

Does RA-5(2) require patching vulnerabilities?

No. RA-5(2) is about updating the vulnerabilities your tools scan for, meaning the scanner’s detection content stays current. Remediation is handled through your vulnerability response and patch management processes. ²

What counts as “update the vulnerabilities to be scanned” in a hosted scanner (SaaS VM platform)?

You still need proof the platform’s detection content is kept current and that your tenant benefits from those updates. Get vendor update logs/attestations plus your own scan reports showing content versioning or update timestamps.

How do we handle air-gapped or restricted environments?

Document an offline update workflow: obtain update bundles, validate integrity per your architecture, transfer via approved media paths, apply updates, and retain logs plus a verification scan. The assessor will focus on repeatability and evidence. ¹

Do we need to update vulnerability content before every scan?

RA-5(2) requires a defined frequency; it does not explicitly require “before every scan.” Set a cadence that matches your risk and operational constraints, then prove you met it with logs and scan metadata. ²

What evidence is most persuasive to an auditor?

A time-linked chain: update record (version + timestamp) → verification scan after update → routine scan report showing the updated content was in effect. This shows control operation, not just policy.

We have multiple scanners (network, container, cloud posture). Do all fall under RA-5(2)?

If they are part of your “system vulnerabilities to be scanned” capability in the boundary, treat them as in-scope and define update expectations per tool type. Keep the procedure tool-specific where update mechanics differ. ¹

Footnotes

1. NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5

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