Skip to content
FedRAMP Rules Hub
JSON — GET /api/checks

Keyboard shortcuts

Go

  • Scope — the control cataloggm
  • Plan — your last certification classgp
  • Collect — the recipe indexgc
  • The control you are workinggw
  • Startgh

Move

  • Next rowj
  • Previous rowk
  • Previous in this run[
  • Next in this run]
  • Filter this page's list/
  • Search everything⌘K

Act

  • Copy this page's permalinky
  • Toggle dark moded
  • This sheet?

Rows are whatever the current page lists — controls on Scope, recipes on Plan and Collect.

Control index

KSI-PIY-RVDReviewing Vulnerability Disclosures

JSON — GET /api/checksMD — /ksi/ksi-piy-rvd.md — this page as markdown, for pasting into an agent

The effectiveness of the provider's vulnerability disclosure program is persistently reviewed.

Mapped NIST 800-53 controls (1)

  • KSI only1

The mark says whether an authored AWS recipe fetches evidence for the control; the tier strip shows which Rev5 baselines also require it — where automated KSI evidence doubles as Rev5 control evidence. = in the class B, C and D baselines, left to right

  • recipe— an authored recipe collects evidence for this control
  • KSI only— a Key Security Indicator reaches it, but no recipe is authored yet
  • orphan— no Key Security Indicator reaches it — a person writes it up instead

Collect evidence (0)

Authored AWS and pipeline recipes whose output is evidence for KSI-PIY-RVD. This mapping is this project’s opinion (AWS overlay v3.0.0, pipeline overlay v0.8.0), versioned separately from the dataset — the upstream FedRAMP rules name none of these tools.

No authored recipe proves KSI-PIY-RVD yet. That is an authoring gap, not a claim that nothing can — the unwritten indicators are enumerated on the class B narrative register.

Default evidence owed by every indicator (5)

From info.default_artifacts.KSI — no indicator carries its own artifacts; requirement-specific evidence lives on /evidence.

  • Explanation of measures (and their objectives) that demonstrate the Key Security Indicator, or an explanation of the reason and resulting risk to customers for not having measures available for that Key Security Indicator.
  • Explanation of the cycle for any measures that are implemented persistently (if applicable).
  • Verification that the measures demonstrate the Key Security Indicator, or that the reason for not having them is accepted.
  • Verification that the automation in place is accurate and sufficient to demonstrate appropriate measures for the Key Security Indicator, or that automation is not necessary for each measure.
  • Validation that the measures are accurately produced and are in place and working as intended, or that the reason for not having them is valid.

Defined terms used (3)

Persistently
Occurring in a firm, steady way that is repeated over a long period of time in spite of obstacles or difficulties. Persistent activities may vary between actors, may occur irregularly, and may include interruptions or waiting periods between cycles. These attributes of persistent activities should be intentional, understood, and documented; the status of persistent activities will always be known.
Provider
The cloud service provider responsible for a cloud service offering in the context of FedRAMP Certification.
Vulnerability
Has the meaning given to "security vulnerability" in 6 USC § 650 (25), which is "any attribute of hardware, software, process, or procedure that could enable or facilitate the defeat of [...] management, operational, and technical controls used to protect against an unauthorized effort to adversely affect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of an information system or its information." This includes gaps in Rev5 Controls and 20x Key Security Indicators, software vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, exposures, weak credentials, insecure services, and all other such potential weaknesses in protection (intentional or unintentional).

The Policy and Inventory run (5)

2/5 have an authored AWS recipe