Building a 3.11 Risk Assessment and 3.14 System Integrity Program
Author: Leonard Esere, Senior Security Architect
Date: April 2026
Organization: Aeolitech
Abstract
Vulnerability management is the operational core of a CUI security program. Every unpatched vulnerability on a CUI system is an open invitation — and adversaries targeting the Defense Industrial Base are disciplined about accepting those invitations. NIST SP 800-171 addresses vulnerability and integrity management across two control families: 3.11 Risk Assessment (three controls governing the identification and response to vulnerabilities) and 3.14 System and Information Integrity (seven controls governing flaw remediation, malware protection, security alerts, and system monitoring). Together, these ten controls define what a mature vulnerability management program looks like for a CMMC Level 2 environment.
This whitepaper provides security engineers, IT operations leaders, and compliance practitioners with a complete, operationally grounded guide to building a 3.11 and 3.14 compliant vulnerability management program. It specifies scan tooling (Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Tenable, Qualys), scan cadence, remediation SLAs by severity, integration with CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, code-level and open-source dependency scanning, and the evidence package that CMMC assessors will require. The guidance draws on direct experience managing vulnerability programs for systems at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), MITRE ATT&CK-aligned threat modeling, and security engineering for DoD Secret-level systems.
Table of Contents
1. The Control Landscape — 3.11 and 3.14 Mapped
2. Vulnerability Scanning — Tooling and Configuration
3. Scan Cadence — Minimum Frequencies by Asset Type
4. Remediation SLAs by Severity
5. The CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Catalog
6. Patching Architecture and Cadence
7. Code-Level Scanning — SAST, DAST, and SCA
8. Risk Acceptance Documentation and POA&Ms
9. Assessor Expectations — Evidence Package
10. Conclusion
1. The Control Landscape — 3.11 and 3.14 Mapped
3.11 Risk Assessment
The Risk Assessment family contains three controls that establish the vulnerability identification and response cycle:
| Control | Text | Operational Meaning |
|---------|------|---------------------|
| 3.11.1 | Periodically assess the risk to organizational operations, organizational assets, and individuals, resulting from the operation of organizational systems and the associated processing, storage, or transmission of CUI. | Annual formal risk assessment; document threats, vulnerabilities, likelihood, and impact |
| 3.11.2 | Periodically scan for vulnerabilities in organizational systems and applications; scan when new vulnerabilities affecting those systems are identified. | Regular vulnerability scanning (not just annual); rescanning triggered by new CVE disclosures |
| 3.11.3 | Remediate vulnerabilities in accordance with risk assessments. | Risk-tiered remediation with documented SLAs; evidence of remediation |
3.14 System and Information Integrity
The System and Information Integrity family contains seven controls that operationalize vulnerability management at the system level:
| Control | Text | Operational Meaning |
|---------|------|---------------------|
| 3.14.1 | Identify, report, and correct information and information system flaws in a timely manner. | Flaw remediation program with defined timelines |
| 3.14.2 | Provide protection from malicious code at designated locations within organizational systems. | EDR/AV with real-time scanning at endpoints, servers, and email |
| 3.14.3 | Monitor system security alerts, advisories, and directives. | Subscribe to US-CERT, CISA, vendor advisories; document review |
| 3.14.4 | Update malicious code protection mechanisms when new releases are available. | Signature / definition updates — automated, not manual |
| 3.14.5 | Perform periodic scans of organizational systems and real-time scans of files from external sources as files are downloaded, opened, or executed. | AV/EDR scanning; scan files on ingestion |
| 3.14.6 | Monitor organizational systems, including inbound and outbound communications traffic, to detect attacks and indicators of potential attacks. | IDS/IPS, EDR, network monitoring |
| 3.14.7 | Identify unauthorized use of organizational systems. | Behavioral analytics; UEBA; anomaly detection |
The Relationship Between 3.11 and 3.14
Control 3.11.1 (risk assessment) provides the analytical framework that drives 3.11.3 (remediation prioritization). Control 3.11.2 (vulnerability scanning) feeds the vulnerability data into that framework. The 3.14 family translates the framework into operational defensive capabilities. An organization that scans (3.11.2) but does not prioritize and remediate findings (3.11.3) has a broken loop. An organization that remediates vulnerabilities (3.11.3, 3.14.1) but has no malware protection (3.14.2) or behavioral monitoring (3.14.7) has addressed only part of the threat surface.
2. Vulnerability Scanning — Tooling and Configuration
Tooling Options
Three scanner families dominate the CMMC-compliant CUI environment space:
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management (MDVM)
MDVM is deeply integrated into the Microsoft ecosystem and is the natural choice for Azure/M365 GCC High environments. It provides:
- Agentless and agent-based discovery and vulnerability assessment for Windows, Linux, macOS, and network devices managed through Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.
- Real-time CVE intelligence enriched with Microsoft threat intelligence.
- Integration with Microsoft Intune for device compliance visibility.
- Direct path to Sentinel for vulnerability finding correlation with security events.
- FedRAMP High authorized in Azure Government.
Limitation: MDVM is endpoint-centric; it does not provide deep network scanning of non-Defender-managed infrastructure or authenticated application vulnerability scanning.
Tenable Vulnerability Management (Nessus / Tenable.io)
Tenable provides the most comprehensive scanning capability, including:
- Credentialed (authenticated) network scanning for deep system visibility.
- Web application scanning (Tenable Web App Scanning / Nessus Pro with web scanning plugins).
- Cloud environment scanning (Azure, AWS, GCP agentless).
- Container image scanning.
- OT/ICS scanning (relevant for some CUI environments with operational technology).
- Tenable's CMMC dashboard provides pre-built views mapping findings to CMMC control requirements.
- FedRAMP Moderate authorized (Tenable.io Government); on-premises Nessus can be deployed in any environment.
Qualys
Qualys provides:
- Cloud-based scanner with agent and network scanning modes.
- FedRAMP Moderate authorized (Qualys Government Platform).
- Strong patch management integration (Qualys Patch Management).
- Container Security scanning.
- Policy Compliance module for configuration baseline assessment.
Scanning Configuration Best Practices
Regardless of tooling, authenticated scanning is required for CMMC compliance. Unauthenticated (network-only) scanning cannot identify unpatched software vulnerabilities inside OS and application installations — it can only identify open ports and services. Assessors expect credentialed scans that use a dedicated service account with local administrator rights on Windows systems and sudo/root access on Linux.
Scan account hygiene:
- Create a dedicated scanning service account (e.g.,
svc-vuln-scan). - Restrict that account to reading-only operations (no interactive login, no CUI data access).
- Rotate the credential at least quarterly.
- Log all use of the scanning account (covered by 3.3 audit controls).
Scan scope validation:
- The scan scope must cover every asset in the CUI boundary — no exclusions without documented justification and risk acceptance.
- The asset inventory used to define scan scope must match the asset inventory in the System Security Plan (SSP) and the CMMC assessment scope boundary.
3. Scan Cadence — Minimum Frequencies by Asset Type
Control 3.11.2 requires "periodic" scanning. Industry practice and assessor expectations have converged on the following cadences for CUI environments:
| Asset Category | Minimum Cadence | Recommended Cadence | Rationale |
|----------------|-----------------|---------------------|-----------|
| Internet-facing systems (web servers, VPNs, load balancers, email gateways) | Weekly | Daily or continuous | Highest exposure; exploits often weaponized within 24-48 hours of CVE disclosure |
| CUI-processing servers (application servers, database servers) | Monthly | Weekly | Core risk surface; balance of coverage vs. scan impact |
| Endpoints (workstations, laptops) | Monthly | Weekly with Defender real-time | Large population; agent-based continuous assessment with MDVM |
| Network infrastructure (switches, routers, firewalls) | Monthly | Quarterly (supplemented by vendor advisories) | Lower vulnerability frequency; impact of scan on stability |
| Cloud resources / IaaS VMs | Weekly | Daily (MDVM agentless is near-continuous) | Cloud assets change frequently; scope drift risk |
Triggered Scanning
Control 3.11.2 also requires scanning when new vulnerabilities affecting those systems are identified. This means:
1. Subscribe to CISA alerts, US-CERT advisories, and relevant vendor security bulletins.
2. When a new high/critical CVE is disclosed, cross-reference the CVE's affected products against the asset inventory.
3. If affected assets exist in scope, trigger an out-of-cycle targeted scan within 24 hours.
4. Document the triggered scan and its findings.
In practice, most organizations implement this through MDVM or Tenable's software asset inventory feature: the scanner continuously tracks which software versions are installed on each host and immediately flags a host as vulnerable when a new CVE is published against that software version — even without running a new scan.
4. Remediation SLAs by Severity
Control 3.11.3 requires remediation "in accordance with risk assessments." This means vulnerability remediation must be risk-prioritized and time-bound. The following SLA framework represents the industry consensus for CUI environments, drawing from DoD contracting expectations and FedRAMP requirements:
| CVSS Score Range | Severity | Maximum Remediation SLA | Notes |
|-----------------|----------|------------------------|-------|
| 9.0–10.0 | Critical | 15 calendar days | Includes all CISA KEV entries regardless of CVSS score |
| 7.0–8.9 | High | 30 calendar days | Internet-facing systems: 15 days |
| 4.0–6.9 | Medium | 90 calendar days | Prioritize by exploitability |
| 0.1–3.9 | Low | 180 calendar days / next maintenance cycle | Defer if resources constrained |
Note on KEV: CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog is the most important prioritization signal for CUI environments (see Section 5). Any KEV-listed vulnerability should be treated as Critical regardless of its CVSS score, with a 15-day remediation SLA, because KEV listing means active exploitation is confirmed.
The SLA Clock
The SLA clock starts at the earlier of:
- The date the vulnerability was first detected in a scan.
- The date the affected software version was deployed (for newly disclosed CVEs against existing deployments).
This is a critical point: if a CVE is disclosed today for software that has been on your systems for six months, the SLA begins now — but the risk existed for six months already. Organizations that track "date of discovery" only, without considering CVE disclosure dates against their installed base, undercount their remediation burden.
Risk Acceptance
When remediation within the SLA is not achievable (due to operational dependencies, testing requirements, or vendor patch availability), the organization must:
1. Document a compensating control — an interim measure that reduces the exploitability of the vulnerability (e.g., network isolation of the vulnerable host, disabling the vulnerable service, adding WAF rules).
2. Create a Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) — documenting the vulnerability, the reason for deferral, the compensating control, and the target remediation date.
3. Obtain risk acceptance sign-off — from the system owner or designated risk acceptance authority.
4. Monitor the compensating control — and remove the risk acceptance when the patch is applied.
CMMC assessors expect to see an active POA&M for any vulnerability not remediated within SLA. A vulnerability discovered and never documented in a POA&M is a finding. A vulnerability documented in a POA&M with a plan is a manageable finding.
5. The CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Catalog
The CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog was established by CISA's Binding Operational Directive 22-01 (BOD 22-01) in November 2021. It is the most operationally significant vulnerability prioritization resource available to CUI environment operators.
What KEV Represents
A vulnerability earns a KEV entry when three conditions are met:
1. It has an assigned CVE ID.
2. There is reliable evidence of active exploitation in the wild (ransomware campaigns, honeypot data, confirmed incidents — not theoretical exploitability or PoC code alone).
3. Clear remediation guidance exists (typically a vendor patch).
This is the adversary's current playbook. When CISA adds a CVE to KEV, it means threat actors are using that vulnerability to compromise organizations right now. For CUI environments — which are specifically targeted by state-sponsored actors and ransomware groups — the KEV catalog should be treated as mandatory reading.
KEV in Practice
- Subscribe to KEV updates: RSS feed and email alerts are available at cisa.gov.
- Cross-reference weekly: At least weekly, cross-reference new KEV entries against the CUI asset inventory.
- 15-day remediation clock: Any KEV entry affecting in-scope CUI assets triggers a 15-day remediation SLA, regardless of CVSS score.
- KEV tracking in SIEM: MDVM and Tenable both integrate KEV data; findings flagged as KEV-listed should appear in prioritized vulnerability reports.
- CISA also publishes Ransomware Vulnerability Warning Pilot (RVWP) alerts — proactive notifications to organizations with internet-facing systems vulnerable to CVEs commonly used in ransomware campaigns.
BOD 22-01 and Federal Contractors
BOD 22-01 directly mandates Federal Civilian Executive Branch (FCEB) agencies to remediate KEV entries within specified windows. Defense Industrial Base contractors are not directly bound by BOD 22-01, but the DoD increasingly incorporates KEV into contracting expectations and CMMC assessment guidance. Treating KEV as a binding prioritization signal — even if not legally required — is both a security best practice and a forward-looking compliance posture.
6. Patching Architecture and Cadence
Vulnerability scanning without a patch deployment mechanism is a documentation exercise. Flaw remediation (3.14.1) requires that identified vulnerabilities actually be corrected.
Patch Management Tooling
| Tool | Best For | Notes |
|------|----------|-------|
| Microsoft Intune / Configuration Manager | Windows endpoints and servers in Azure/GCC High environments | Native integration with MDVM; auto-patching policies; compliance reporting |
| WSUS (Windows Server Update Services) | On-premises Windows environments | Managed patch approval workflow; limited to Microsoft products |
| Qualys Patch Management | Cross-platform; hybrid environments | Integrates with Qualys scanner; third-party app patching |
| Ivanti Neurons for Patch Management | Enterprise, cross-platform | Strong third-party app coverage; cloud and on-prem |
| AWS Systems Manager Patch Manager | AWS GovCloud workloads | Automated patching for EC2 instances; patch baselines |
| Azure Update Manager | Azure VMs and Arc-enabled servers | Native Azure; configurable maintenance windows; compliance view |
Patching Cadence
| Patch Category | Cadence |
|----------------|---------|
| OS security patches (Microsoft, RHEL, Ubuntu) | Monthly (Patch Tuesday + next business day for emergency out-of-band patches) |
| Third-party application patches (browsers, Office, Java, Adobe) | Monthly |
| Firmware (BIOS, network card, storage controller) | Quarterly |
| Emergency / out-of-band patches (KEV, actively exploited) | Within 15 days (or immediately with compensating control) |
| Container base images | Weekly (rebuild; not in-place patch) |
Patch Testing and Change Control
Patches to CUI production systems must follow a change management process. A practical minimum:
1. Lab testing: Apply patch to non-production equivalent first; confirm system function.
2. Change ticket: Document the patch, systems affected, test results, rollback procedure, and maintenance window.
3. Maintenance window deployment: Apply to production during approved window.
4. Post-patch verification: Rescan or confirm the CVE is no longer detected; update the vulnerability tracker.
5. Exception documentation: If a patch cannot be applied (vendor support issue, operational dependency), document in POA&M immediately.
7. Code-Level Scanning — SAST, DAST, and SCA
For CUI environments where custom software is developed or where software supply chain risk is elevated, scanning must extend beyond infrastructure to the code itself.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
SAST analyzes source code without executing it, identifying vulnerabilities such as SQL injection, buffer overflows, hardcoded credentials, and insecure deserialization.
Tools for CMMC environments:
- GitHub Advanced Security / CodeQL: Integrates into GitHub Actions CI/CD pipelines; identifies CWE-mapped vulnerabilities; GHAS is FedRAMP-authorized in GitHub Enterprise Cloud for Government.
- SonarQube: On-premises or cloud; broad language support; integrates with Azure DevOps and Jenkins.
- Checkmarx SAST: Enterprise-grade; DoD approved in some program environments.
- Semgrep: Open-source with commercial rules; fast; integrates into any CI/CD pipeline.
Integration pattern: SAST scans should run automatically on every pull request. A failed SAST scan (findings above a defined severity threshold) should block merge to the main branch. This enforces the "shift left" security principle — finding vulnerabilities when they are cheapest to fix.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
DAST tests running applications for vulnerabilities by simulating attacker inputs — SQL injection, XSS, authentication bypass, CSRF, and API security issues.
Tools:
- OWASP ZAP (Zed Attack Proxy): Open-source; integrates into CI/CD.
- Burp Suite Enterprise: Commercial; comprehensive; widely used in DoD program environments.
- Tenable Web App Scanning: Integrated with Tenable vulnerability management platform.
Cadence: DAST scans should run against a staging environment on every release cycle and against production systems at minimum monthly (or after each significant release).
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) — Open Source Dependency Scanning
Modern CUI applications include dozens to hundreds of open-source libraries. A vulnerability in any of those libraries can compromise the entire application. SCA identifies open-source components and maps them against vulnerability databases.
Tools:
- GitHub Dependabot: Automatically opens pull requests to update vulnerable dependencies; integrates with GitHub's security advisory database. Available in GitHub Enterprise Cloud for Government.
- Snyk: Cloud and CLI-based; scans
npm,pip,Maven,Go,NuGet, and container images; integrates with Azure DevOps. - FOSSA: Open-source compliance and security; maps licenses as well as vulnerabilities.
- Trivy (Aqua Security): Open-source; scans container images, file systems, and git repositories; integrates with CI/CD pipelines.
Software Bill of Materials (SBOM): CISA and the DoD are moving toward requiring SBOMs for software delivered to the government. EO 14028 (2021) directed NIST to publish guidance on SBOMs. For CUI application development, begin generating SBOMs now (CycloneDX or SPDX formats) — this will become a contractual requirement and demonstrates a mature software supply chain posture.
8. Risk Acceptance Documentation and POA&Ms
A Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) is the formal mechanism for documenting vulnerabilities that cannot be remediated within SLA. For CMMC purposes, the POA&M is not just a compliance artifact — it is the document that demonstrates the organization's risk awareness and risk management discipline.
POA&M Elements
A compliant POA&M entry for a vulnerability must contain:
| Field | Content |
|-------|---------|
| Finding ID | Unique identifier (e.g., scanner finding ID or CVE) |
| Description | CVE number, CVSS score, affected system(s), vulnerability description |
| Discovery date | Date first identified in scan |
| Severity | Critical / High / Medium / Low |
| SLA deadline | Date by which remediation must be complete |
| Planned remediation | Specific action to be taken (patch version, configuration change, system replacement) |
| Planned completion date | Target date for remediation |
| Compensating control | Interim measure to reduce risk while remediation is pending |
| Risk acceptance | Signed authorization if SLA deadline will be missed |
| Status | Open / In Progress / Closed (with closure date and evidence) |
POA&M Governance
- Review frequency: POA&Ms should be reviewed at least monthly; overdue items should be escalated.
- Closure evidence: A POA&M is closed when the remediation is complete and verified — not when the patch is applied. Verification means a rescan showing the vulnerability is no longer present.
- Aggregate reporting: The organization should maintain a summary POA&M view that tracks the total open vulnerability count, aging (how many are past SLA), and trend over time (is the backlog growing or shrinking?).
CMMC assessors treat the POA&M as a real-time window into the organization's vulnerability posture. A POA&M with 300 open high/critical items from two years ago — with no closure dates and no compensating controls — indicates a broken vulnerability management program. A POA&M with 12 items, each with compensating controls, clear timelines, and active owner assignments, indicates a functioning program.
9. Assessor Expectations — Evidence Package
A CMMC Level 2 C3PAO assessor reviewing families 3.11 and 3.14 will typically request the following evidence:
For 3.11 (Risk Assessment)
| Control | Evidence |
|---------|---------|
| 3.11.1 | Dated formal risk assessment report (within the past year); threat/vulnerability/risk matrix; sign-off by system owner or ISSO |
| 3.11.2 | Vulnerability scan reports (authenticated); scan schedule showing cadence; evidence of triggered scans when new CVEs disclosed; scanner configuration showing all in-scope assets |
| 3.11.3 | Remediation tracking records; closed vulnerability examples with before/after scans; active POA&M |
For 3.14 (System and Information Integrity)
| Control | Evidence |
|---------|---------|
| 3.14.1 | Patch management policy; patch deployment records; POA&M for unpatched items |
| 3.14.2 | EDR/AV deployment evidence (all in-scope endpoints); configuration showing real-time protection enabled; policy settings |
| 3.14.3 | Subscription records for CISA alerts, US-CERT, vendor advisories; process for reviewing and acting on advisories |
| 3.14.4 | EDR/AV definition update configuration (automated); update frequency records |
| 3.14.5 | Scan configuration showing real-time file scanning; evidence of periodic system scans |
| 3.14.6 | IDS/IPS deployment or network monitoring evidence; SIEM alert rules for attack detection; sample alerts |
| 3.14.7 | UEBA configuration or equivalent behavioral monitoring; documented process for investigating anomalies; sample investigations |
The Scan-to-Remediation Chain
The most important evidence chain assessors look for is the scan-to-remediation chain: a documented, auditable trail from vulnerability discovery to verified remediation. This means:
1. Scan report showing the vulnerability discovered on date X.
2. Ticket/POA&M entry created within SLA-required timeframe.
3. Patch application record (change ticket) showing when the patch was applied.
4. Post-patch scan report showing the vulnerability is no longer present.
5. POA&M closure with date and reference to the verification scan.
Organizations that can demonstrate this chain for a sample of recent high/critical findings will pass the vulnerability management assessment domain. Organizations that have scan reports but no remediation records — or remediation records but no verification scans — will receive findings.
10. Conclusion
Vulnerability management is not a seasonal activity or a compliance checkbox to check before an assessment. It is a continuous operational discipline that determines whether a CUI environment remains defensible over time. The 800-171 families 3.11 and 3.14 collectively define the minimum program that the DoD expects its contractors to operate.
The combination of infrastructure scanning (MDVM, Tenable, Qualys), KEV-driven prioritization, defined remediation SLAs, code-level security testing (SAST, DAST, SCA), and a disciplined POA&M process creates a vulnerability management program that is both genuinely effective against the threats targeting the Defense Industrial Base and demonstrably compliant with CMMC Level 2 requirements.
From LANL ATO experience and DoD Secret-level system security engineering, the organizations that do this well share two characteristics: they treat vulnerability management as an engineering function (automated, tooled, measured) rather than a documentation exercise, and they maintain clear ownership at every step — someone is accountable for the discovery, the remediation, and the verification.
About the Author
Leonard Esere is a senior security architect with extensive experience in vulnerability management, risk assessment, and compliance engineering for federal and defense sector environments. At Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), he supported vulnerability management programs on systems operating under DoE/NNSA oversight, where scan coverage, remediation velocity, and POA&M accuracy were directly audited. His experience extends to MITRE ATT&CK-aligned threat modeling, DoD Secret and DoE Q clearance-level system security, and PCI DSS vulnerability management for the Frontier supercomputing infrastructure. He brings a practitioner's perspective to the gap between what frameworks require and what organizations actually need to do to close it.
References
1. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2021). NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2, Families 3.11 and 3.14. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171r2
2. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog. https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog
3. CISA. (2021). Binding Operational Directive 22-01: Reducing the Significant Risk of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities. https://www.cisa.gov/binding-operational-directive-22-01
4. Tenable. CMMC Vulnerability Management Dashboard. https://www.tenable.com/sc-dashboards/cmmc-vulnerability-management
5. Microsoft. Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/security/defender-vulnerability-management/defender-vulnerability-management
6. NIST. (2022). NIST SP 800-171A Rev. 2: Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171Ar2
7. CISA / NIST. Software Bill of Materials (SBOM). https://www.cisa.gov/sbom
8. GitHub. GitHub Advanced Security for Government. https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/get-started/github-for-enterprises/about-github-for-enterprises
9. The Hacker News. (2026). CISA Adds 8 Exploited Flaws to KEV, Sets April-May 2026 Federal Deadlines. https://thehackernews.com/2026/04/cisa-adds-8-exploited-flaws-to-kev-sets.html
10. FOSSA. (2024). Using the CISA KEV Catalog. https://fossa.com/blog/using-cisa-kev-catalog/
11. LakeRidge Tech. (2026). CMMC 2.0 Compliance: Vulnerability Scanning and Risk-Informed Remediation. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lakeridgetech_how-to-prioritize-and-triage-vulnerabilities-activity-7446663308293754881-jpB2
Take the Next Step
A compliant and effective vulnerability management program requires the right tools, defined processes, and consistent operational execution. If your organization needs help building a 3.11 / 3.14 compliant vulnerability management program, establishing scan-to-remediation evidence chains for CMMC assessment, or integrating KEV-driven prioritization into your patch management workflow, Aeolitech's security engineering team is ready to support you.
Contact Aeolitech to schedule a vulnerability management gap assessment or to discuss your CMMC Level 2 assessment readiness.