Resources · 23
Prioritize vulnerabilities and verify remediation
Connect known exploitation, exposed assets, business impact and proof of a working fix.
· 9 min
What this guide helps achieve
- Match alerts to assets
- Rank actual urgency
- Roll out safely
- Verify and close
Quick check
- Is the affected product and version actually deployed?
- Is the asset reachable and business critical?
- Is exploitation documented?
- What protects the service before a patch?
- Does a check confirm the problem is gone from the asset?
Step-by-step method
- 01
Consolidate the inventory
Map services, products, versions, environments, exposure and owners. A component advisory alone does not prove that a vulnerable instance is deployed.
Deliverable: dated affected-asset list and uncertainties.
- 02
Qualify the finding
Compare the vendor advisory, CVE identifier, exploitation conditions and, where relevant, CISA’s catalog of known exploited vulnerabilities. Record when each source was checked.
Deliverable: finding with primary references.
- 03
Set a defensible priority
Consider known exploitation, asset reachability, required privileges, data handled, service impact and available remediation. Assign an owner and context-specific deadline.
Deliverable: reasoned priority decision.
- 04
Prepare the change
Map dependencies, change window, backup and rollback. If an update cannot be applied promptly, record the temporary control and its expiry.
Deliverable: rollout plan and limited exception.
- 05
Deploy and test
Apply the vendor fix or mitigation using the approved process. Check the resulting version, business journey and integrations that may regress.
Deliverable: deployment record and functional result.
- 06
Verify closure
Check the actual asset with a suitable method, find missed instances and revisit exceptions. Do not close a ticket because an update was merely scheduled.
Deliverable: verification evidence and updated register.
Management indicators
| Indicator | What it measures | First action |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage | Critical assets with known versions and owners | Complete the inventory |
| Delay | Time from qualification to verified fix | Remove repeated bottlenecks |
| Verification | Fixes retested on real assets | Reopen closures without evidence |
| Exceptions | Waivers with control, owner and expiry | Close expired exceptions |
Common pitfalls
- Ranking solely by a generic score without checking the asset
- Assuming a KEV listing means the product exists in your estate
- Deploying without testing service behaviour
- Leaving compensating controls without a review date
Frequently asked questions
Must the highest-scored CVE always go first?
A score describes technical severity; known exploitation, exposure and local service impact guide your operational order.
What if no patch exists?
Follow vendor mitigations, reduce exposure where possible and document an owner, review date and residual risk.
When is the work closed?
After the version or mitigation has been verified on affected instances and critical functionality has been tested.
References: data, uses and limitations
Documentation reviewed on .
| Source and purpose | Verified data or benchmark | How to use it | Limitation to retain |
|---|---|---|---|
| FIRST · CVSS Describe technical vulnerability severity using an explicit method and vector. |
CVSS 4.0 scores run from 0.0 to 10.0. Base, Threat, Environmental and Supplemental metric groups serve different purposes. | Retain the score version, vector and date. Compare it with the installed version, access paths and business consequences before ordering remediation. | A high score is not evidence of exploitation; a low score does not mean a service has no risk. |
| FIRST · EPSS Estimate exploitation probability for a published CVE. |
The model looks ahead 30 days. Its score is a probability; its percentile ranks that score relative to other CVEs. | Record the data date and distinguish probability from percentile. Add asset exposure and confirmed exploitation evidence. | The model does not predict harm to your organisation. Low probability does not cancel a critical exposure. |
| CISA · Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Identify vulnerabilities listed by CISA as known to be exploited. |
The catalogue includes CVE, product, date added and required action. Its official repository also provides the data schema. | Check applicability to your products and retain the access date. Review the requested action and vendor advisory before confirming remediation. | Absence from the catalogue does not establish safety. Administrative deadlines in it are not automatically binding on every organisation. |
CVSS, EPSS, KEV and VEX
Vulnerability prioritisation: four signals to connect to the asset
A vulnerability queue often mixes information answering different questions. CVSS describes technical severity, EPSS estimates a probability of observed exploitation, KEV records known exploitation and VEX carries a product applicability assertion. A local decision still needs the deployed version, access paths and consequences of exploitation.
These are documentary reference points. EPSS examples, situations and the VEX product are fictional; no current CVE score, real inventory or scan result is presented. This page calculates neither CVSS, organisational risk nor an automatic priority. Proposed evidence and decisions are a local editorial method.
Four independent panels: CVSS describes severity; EPSS estimates observed exploitation within thirty days; KEV records known exploitation; VEX states declared applicability. Compare them with the deployed product and its context without adding them into one score.
Four questions and four kinds of information
| Source | Useful question | What it cannot establish alone |
|---|---|---|
| CVSS 4.0 | What is the technical severity under the assessed metrics? | The score proves neither exploitation nor consequences for your service. |
| EPSS | What is the estimated probability of observing exploitation of this CVE in the next thirty days? | It does not describe compromise of your instance, its controls or business loss. |
| CISA KEV | Is the vulnerability listed as known to be exploited? | Listing does not establish that the product exists in your estate; absence does not establish safety. |
| VEX | What does an issuer assert about a vulnerability for identified products at a stated time? | An assertion alone proves neither deployment of the relevant version nor issuer trustworthiness. |
CVSS 4.0: preserve groups, vector and assessment author
A number from 0 to 10 loses meaning when its version, vector and assessed groups disappear. FIRST distinguishes CVSS-B, CVSS-BT, CVSS-BE and CVSS-BTE. Undefined Threat and Environmental metrics take default values rather than disappearing from the calculation.
| Group | Role | Reading check |
|---|---|---|
| Base | Intrinsic vulnerability characteristics. | A supplier’s CVSS-B is not your priority decision. |
| Threat | Threat characteristics that can change over time. | Date the assessment and explain exploitation information used. |
| Environmental | Characteristics specific to the consumer’s environment. | State the controls and system importance considered rather than silently changing a score. |
| Supplemental | Additional context, such as Safety or Recovery. | These metrics do not modify the final CVSS score; they may inform a separate local analysis. |
EPSS: probability, percentile and missing data
FIRST describes a probability from 0 to 1, updated daily, over a thirty-day horizon. The percentile is a relative rank among currently scored vulnerabilities. Do not add probability and percentile or turn their pair into the probability of an attack on your organisation.
| Fictional example | Provided values | Correct reading |
|---|---|---|
| A probability | Probability : 0.05 · Percentile : Unspecified | 0.05 means a 5% estimated probability of observed exploitation within the model horizon, rather than an estate compromise rate. |
| Probability and rank | Probability : 0.02 · Percentile : 0.97 | In this fictional example 0.02 means 2%, while 0.97 places the score at the 97th percentile. The rank does not turn a 2% probability into 97%. |
| No received value | Probability : Unspecified · Percentile : Unspecified | Missing data remains unknown; it is neither zero nor evidence of no exploitation. Record the failure or the date of the last available value. |
Seven useful readings of the KEV schema
The official CISA repository schema describes the catalogue and its entries. The following selection helps retain consultation context rather than enumerate every field. Match each entry to the supplier advisory and actual asset.
| Fields | Meaning | Proposed check |
|---|---|---|
| catalogVersion / dateReleased | Catalogue version and publication time. | Keep a reference to the consulted edition; distinguish publication time from your assessment time. |
| cveID / vendorProject / product | Identifier and product associated with the entry. | Match name, version, distribution and embedded components before declaring an asset affected. |
| dateAdded | Date the vulnerability entered the catalogue. | Do not present it as the first exploitation date or CVE publication date. |
| requiredAction | Requested action to address the vulnerability. | Read the complete instruction and supplier references, then document local implementation. |
| dueDate | Catalogue deadline for the requested action. | Check the context and scope of the CISA instruction before adopting it as a local deadline. |
| knownRansomwareCampaignUse | Known indicates confirmed ransomware campaign use; Unknown means CISA lacks confirmation. | Do not translate Unknown into never used or a definite false value. |
| cwes | Weakness category codes associated with the entry. | Use categories to group causes; they do not replace the CVE identifier or affected version. |
Six fictional situations: what is missing before a decision?
High severity, product not located
An advisory reports high severity; the inventory cannot locate that version in the estate.
Confirm presence and version with the owner, including embedded dependencies.
Retain applicability unknown. Absence from an incomplete inventory does not justify closure.
Known exploitation, exposed instance
The vulnerability is listed as known to be exploited and an owner confirms an affected internet-accessible instance.
Review supplier actions and arrange exposure reduction and remediation suited to the service.
Name the owner, interim control and expected verification evidence; a severity score alone supplies none of this traceability.
Low probability, essential service
The fictional EPSS probability is low, but the affected instance supports an essential service.
Assess consequences and access paths before agreeing a change window.
Do not treat a low score as insurance; that instance’s controls are not contextual inputs to EPSS.
VEX for another version
The supplier declares version 2.4.0 not affected; the asset still runs 2.3.0.
Seek an assertion applicable to the installed version and verify its provenance.
Do not extend a conclusion across versions. A VEX document deploys no update.
Temporary control becomes permanent
A temporary rule reduces access; its review date has passed.
Check that it still protects the relevant path, then decide whether to maintain it or apply the fix.
Keep the owner, limits and a new review date. A perimeter control is not automatically an OpenVEX built-in product mitigation.
Patch announced, deployment unverified
A fixed release is available, but the ticket contains only a download link.
Check the version actually deployed, remaining instances and critical functionality.
Close on implementation and verification evidence, rather than the supplier’s availability of a patch.
Eight records for a traceable remediation decision
- Product, version or build, environment and asset owner.
- Vulnerability identifier, supplier advisory and relevant exploitation conditions.
- CVSS version, vector, metric-group nomenclature and assessment author.
- EPSS date, probability and percentile in separate fields, or an explicit missing value.
- Dated KEV status, requested action and consulted catalogue edition.
- Applicable VEX assertion: issuer, product, version, time and any justification.
- Reasoned local decision, interim control, owner and review date.
- Deployment or mitigation evidence, verification result and remaining limits.
Read VEX statuses and applicability conditions →
Primary sources and scope
- FIRST · CVSS 4.0 Specification · CVSS 4.0 · document 1.2 · reviewed 2026-10-22
Overview · Assessment · Nomenclature · Supplemental Metrics - FIRST · EPSS Frequently Asked Questions · Living FAQ · reviewed 2026-10-22
What is EPSS? · Reading the score · Percentile · Score changes - CISA · KEV official data schema · Official CISA mirror · reviewed 2026-10-22
Catalog properties · vulnerability properties · required fields - OpenVEX · Specification v0.2.0 · OpenVEX v0.2.0 · reviewed 2026-10-22
Statement Data Structure · Status Labels · Status Justifications · Data Inheritance
Sources checked on
Build signatures and provenance
Verify patch origin and then its application
A fixed version needs connecting to the received package and updated instance. Provenance verification helps establish expected origin; remediation confirmation still requires checking the active version and relevant behaviour.
- Keep the accepted patch digest and signature/provenance verification results.
- Match that package to the version actually deployed on each targeted instance.
- Do not close on authenticity alone: document remediation checks, regressions and remaining limits.
Read the pre-deployment provenance reference →
Sources checked on · SLSA 1.2 · Build: Verifying artifacts · SLSA 1.2 · Build: Provenance · SLSA 1.2 · Build: Track Basics · in-toto · Statement v1 · Sigstore · Verifying Signatures
Explore the CISA KEV catalogue
KEV is CISA’s catalogue of vulnerabilities known to be exploited. This explorer contains a complete dated snapshot, not a live feed. A CVE or product-name match is a lead to compare with the exact deployed product and version; it does not prove that a visitor’s system is vulnerable or compromised.
Entry names, products, descriptions, required actions and links retain CISA’s language and values. Explanations are editorial. Entries may be added or corrected after this snapshot; consult the official source before an operational decision.
- Entries
- 1769
- Distinct vendor/project labels
- 291
- Catalogue release date
Counters describe this snapshot only. They do not measure attack counts, vulnerability prevalence or an organisation’s risk. Distinct vendorProject labels are counted exactly as published, without merging aliases or treating them as distinct companies.
Unknown means CISA lacks confirmation of use in a ransomware campaign; it does not mean no exploitation. forensicTriage Yes/No is a separate field described by the schema with a reference to BOD 26-04. An absent field stays unreported. Neither No nor Unknown demonstrates that your asset has not been compromised.
dueDate is the deadline published in the CISA entry for the stated action. It is not a universal SLA, a patch release date or evidence that a patch was installed. The forensicTriage field alone cannot determine your obligations or define an investigation plan.
Six readings that prevent a misleading priority
| Published field | Useful reading | Conclusion to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| cveID | Join sources discussing the same vulnerability. | The identifier year does not date KEV inclusion. |
| vendorProject · product | Find the vendor advisory and local inventory. | A product name does not replace affected versions and configurations. |
| dateAdded | Date the entry’s inclusion in this catalogue. | Do not call it discovery or first-exploitation date. |
| dueDate · requiredAction | Read the published action and deadline together. | Do not turn the date into a universal obligation or proof of remediation. |
| knownRansomwareCampaignUse | Preserve Known, Unknown or an absent field. | Unknown is not No and does not remove the known exploitation signal underlying KEV. |
| forensicTriage · cwes | Separate CISA’s indicator from published weakness classes. | A CWE is not a specific product or score; No is not a certificate that no incident occurred. |
Catalogue additions by year
Results : 555 / 1769 · Page 3 / 23
| CVE | Vendor or project · product | Date added / Entry due date | Use in ransomware campaigns / forensicTriage |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2018-7445 CWE-119 | MikroTik RouterOS Entry and action published by CISAMikroTik RouterOS Stack-Based Buffer Overflow VulnerabilityIn MikroTik RouterOS, a stack-based buffer overflow occurs when processing NetBIOS session request messages. Remote attackers with access to the service can exploit this vulnerability and gain code execution on the system.
|
|
|
| CVE-2020-9934 | Apple iOS, iPadOS, and macOS Entry and action published by CISAApple iOS, iPadOS, and macOS Input Validation VulnerabilityApple iOS, iPadOS, and macOS contain an unspecified vulnerability involving input validation which can allow a local attacker to view sensitive user information.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-26258 CWE-78 | D-Link DIR-820L Entry and action published by CISAD-Link DIR-820L Remote Code Execution VulnerabilityD-Link DIR-820L contains an unspecified vulnerability in Device Name parameter in /lan.asp which allows for remote code execution.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-27593 CWE-610 | QNAP Photo Station Entry and action published by CISAQNAP Photo Station Externally Controlled Reference VulnerabilityCertain QNAP NAS running Photo Station with internet exposure contain an externally controlled reference to a resource vulnerability which can allow an attacker to modify system files. This vulnerability was observed being utilized in a Deadbolt ransomware campaign.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-3075 CWE-20 | Google Chromium Mojo Entry and action published by CISAGoogle Chromium Mojo Insufficient Data Validation VulnerabilityGoogle Chromium Mojo contains an insufficient data validation vulnerability that allows a remote attacker, who has compromised the renderer process, to potentially perform a sandbox escape via a crafted HTML page. This vulnerability could affect multiple web browsers that utilize Chromium, including, but not limited to, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Opera.
|
|
|
| CVE-2020-28949 CWE-74 | PEAR Archive_Tar Entry and action published by CISAPEAR Archive_Tar Deserialization of Untrusted Data VulnerabilityPEAR Archive_Tar allows an unserialization attack because phar: is blocked but PHAR: is not blocked. PEAR stands for PHP Extension and Application Repository and it is an open-source framework and distribution system for reusable PHP components with known usage in third-party products such as Drupal Core and Red Hat Linux.
|
|
|
| CVE-2020-36193 CWE-22, CWE-59 | PEAR Archive_Tar Entry and action published by CISAPEAR Archive_Tar Improper Link Resolution VulnerabilityPEAR Archive_Tar Tar.php allows write operations with directory traversal due to inadequate checking of symbolic links. PEAR stands for PHP Extension and Application Repository and it is an open-source framework and distribution system for reusable PHP components with known usage in third-party products such as Drupal Core and Red Hat Linux.
|
|
|
| CVE-2021-31010 CWE-20, CWE-502 | Apple iOS, macOS, watchOS Entry and action published by CISAApple iOS, macOS, watchOS Sandbox Bypass VulnerabilityIn affected versions of Apple iOS, macOS, and watchOS, a sandboxed process may be able to circumvent sandbox restrictions.
|
|
|
| CVE-2021-38406 CWE-787 | Delta Electronics DOPSoft 2 Entry and action published by CISADelta Electronics DOPSoft 2 Improper Input Validation VulnerabilityDelta Electronics DOPSoft 2 lacks proper validation of user-supplied data when parsing specific project files (improper input validation) resulting in an out-of-bounds write that allows for code execution.
|
|
|
| CVE-2021-39226 CWE-287 | Grafana Labs Grafana Entry and action published by CISAGrafana Authentication Bypass VulnerabilityGrafana contains an authentication bypass vulnerability that allows authenticated and unauthenticated users to view and delete all snapshot data, potentially resulting in complete snapshot data loss.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-2294 CWE-122 | WebRTC WebRTC Entry and action published by CISAWebRTC Heap Buffer Overflow VulnerabilityWebRTC, an open-source project providing web browsers with real-time communication, contains a heap buffer overflow vulnerability that allows an attacker to perform shellcode execution. This vulnerability impacts web browsers using WebRTC including but not limited to Google Chrome.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-22963 CWE-94 | VMware Tanzu Spring Cloud Entry and action published by CISAVMware Tanzu Spring Cloud Function Remote Code Execution VulnerabilityWhen using routing functionality in VMware Tanzu's Spring Cloud Function, it is possible for a user to provide a specially crafted SpEL as a routing-expression that may result in remote code execution and access to local resources.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-24112 CWE-290 | Apache APISIX Entry and action published by CISAApache APISIX Authentication Bypass VulnerabilityApache APISIX contains an authentication bypass vulnerability that allows for remote code execution.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-24706 CWE-1188 | Apache CouchDB Entry and action published by CISAApache CouchDB Insecure Default Initialization of Resource VulnerabilityApache CouchDB contains an insecure default initialization of resource vulnerability which can allow an attacker to escalate to administrative privileges.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-26352 CWE-22, CWE-138 | dotCMS dotCMS Entry and action published by CISAdotCMS Unrestricted Upload of File VulnerabilitydotCMS ContentResource API contains an unrestricted upload of file with a dangerous type vulnerability that allows for directory traversal, in which the file is saved outside of the intended storage location. Exploitation allows for remote code execution.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-0028 CWE-940 | Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS Entry and action published by CISAPalo Alto Networks PAN-OS Reflected Amplification Denial-of-Service VulnerabilityA Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS URL filtering policy misconfiguration could allow a network-based attacker to conduct reflected and amplified TCP denial-of-service (RDoS) attacks.
|
|
|
| CVE-2017-15944 | Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS Entry and action published by CISAPalo Alto Networks PAN-OS Remote Code Execution VulnerabilityPalo Alto Networks PAN-OS contains multiple, unspecified vulnerabilities which can allow for remote code execution when chained.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-21971 CWE-824 | Microsoft Windows Entry and action published by CISAMicrosoft Windows Runtime Remote Code Execution VulnerabilityMicrosoft Windows Runtime contains an unspecified vulnerability that allows for remote code execution.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-22536 CWE-444 | SAP Multiple Products Entry and action published by CISASAP Multiple Products HTTP Request Smuggling VulnerabilitySAP NetWeaver Application Server ABAP, SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java, ABAP Platform, SAP Content Server and SAP Web Dispatcher allow HTTP request smuggling. An unauthenticated attacker can prepend a victim's request with arbitrary data, allowing for function execution impersonating the victim or poisoning intermediary Web caches.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-26923 CWE-295 | Microsoft Active Directory Entry and action published by CISAMicrosoft Active Directory Domain Services Privilege Escalation VulnerabilityAn authenticated user could manipulate attributes on computer accounts they own or manage, and acquire a certificate from Active Directory Certificate Services that would allow for privilege escalation to SYSTEM.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-2856 CWE-20 | Google Chromium Intents Entry and action published by CISAGoogle Chromium Intents Insufficient Input Validation VulnerabilityGoogle Chromium Intents contains an insufficient validation of untrusted input vulnerability that allows a remote attacker to browse to a malicious website via a crafted HTML page. This vulnerability could affect multiple web browsers that utilize Chromium, including, but not limited to, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Opera.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-32893 CWE-20, CWE-787 | Apple iOS and macOS Entry and action published by CISAApple iOS and macOS Out-of-Bounds Write VulnerabilityApple iOS and macOS contain an out-of-bounds write vulnerability that could allow for remote code execution when processing malicious crafted web content.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-32894 CWE-20, CWE-787 | Apple iOS and macOS Entry and action published by CISAApple iOS and macOS Out-of-Bounds Write VulnerabilityApple iOS and macOS contain an out-of-bounds write vulnerability that could allow an application to execute code with kernel privileges.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-27925 CWE-22 | Synacor Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) Entry and action published by CISASynacor Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) Arbitrary File Upload VulnerabilitySynacor Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) contains flaw in the mboximport functionality, allowing an authenticated attacker to upload arbitrary files to perform remote code execution. This vulnerability was chained with CVE-2022-37042 which allows for unauthenticated remote code execution.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-37042 CWE-23 | Synacor Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) Entry and action published by CISASynacor Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) Authentication Bypass VulnerabilitySynacor Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in MailboxImportServlet. This vulnerability was chained with CVE-2022-27925 which allows for unauthenticated remote code execution.
|
|
|
An old identifier can enter the catalogue recently
CVE-2015-5477, associated with ISC BIND in this snapshot, has identifier year 2015 and dateAdded 8 October 2026. These dates answer different questions. The entry calls for following vendor instructions; it does not establish your BIND version, exposure or installation of a fix.
From a public signal to a documented decision
- Qualify the match
Keep the CVE, source and date, then establish product, version, embedded component and exposure. An SBOM may locate a component without proving its runtime condition.
- Read the action at its source
Open the vendor advisory and updates. Separate updating, mitigation, discontinuing a product and searching for compromise evidence; a patch does not replace these other decisions.
- Document the change
Assign an owner, prepare rollback and verify dependencies. A mitigation remains a scoped measure with an explicit validity period.
- Verify the resulting state
Retain an observed version, checked configuration and service test. Closing a task needs evidence concerning the actual asset, beyond a console status.
Source release : · Documentary review :
- CISA · KEV official snapshot · 2026.11.06
- CISA · KEV data schema · JSON Schema Draft 07 · pinned source
- CISA · Official mirror and reuse terms · Official repository · pinned source
- CISA · KEV licence · CC0 1.0 Universal
- FIRST · CVSS · CVSS 4.0
- FIRST · EPSS · Living documentation · reviewed 2026-10-22
CISA KEV data reused under CC0 1.0. Reuse implies no CISA affiliation or endorsement and grants no right to use the CISA logo or DHS seal.
Reference details · CISA KEV
How we publish this official snapshot
The copy is identified by its catalogue version, dateReleased, official mirror commit and source-file digest. CISA publication, GitHub synchronisation and our review are distinct events. Aggregates are computed from the retained entries; no visitor inventory collection or vulnerability scan takes place.
- catalogVersion
2026.11.06- dateReleased
- GitHub commit
e5b3a9b25050a8da26c96266c5bfe438ee0bdebc·- SHA-256
47e0406b2be5a40420eff66f3d90e83eb8883dae6ff4d08e1b2a942c366f6cc2
Counters describe this snapshot only. They do not measure attack counts, vulnerability prevalence or an organisation’s risk. Distinct vendorProject labels are counted exactly as published, without merging aliases or treating them as distinct companies.
Explore the catalogue and method →
Source release : · Documentary review :
- CISA · KEV official snapshot · 2026.11.06
- CISA · KEV data schema · JSON Schema Draft 07 · pinned source
- CISA · Official mirror and reuse terms · Official repository · pinned source
- CISA · KEV licence · CC0 1.0 Universal
- FIRST · CVSS · CVSS 4.0
- FIRST · EPSS · Living documentation · reviewed 2026-10-22
CISA KEV data reused under CC0 1.0. Reuse implies no CISA affiliation or endorsement and grants no right to use the CISA logo or DHS seal.
Official references
References consulted: . The method and worksheet propose checks to adapt to your context; they do not constitute certification.
- NIST SP 800-40 Rev. 4 — enterprise patch management
- CISA — Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog
- FIRST · CVSS
- FIRST · EPSS
- CISA · Known Exploited Vulnerabilities
- SLSA 1.2 · Build: Verifying artifacts
- SLSA 1.2 · Build: Provenance
- SLSA 1.2 · Build: Track Basics
- in-toto · Statement v1
- Sigstore · Verifying Signatures
- CISA · KEV official snapshot
- CISA · KEV data schema
- CISA · Official mirror and reuse terms
- CISA · KEV licence
- FIRST · CVSS
- FIRST · EPSS Frequently Asked Questions
- CISA · KEV official data schema
- OpenVEX · Specification v0.2.0
Continue exploring
Related analysis
