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 : 245 / 1769 · Page 1 / 10
| CVE | Vendor or project · product | Date added / Entry due date | Use in ransomware campaigns / forensicTriage |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-14847 CWE-130 | MongoDB MongoDB and MongoDB Server Entry and action published by CISAMongoDB and MongoDB Server Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency VulnerabilityMongoDB Server contains an improper handling of length parameter inconsistency vulnerability in Zlib compressed protocol headers. This vulnerability may allow a read of uninitialized heap memory by an unauthenticated client.
|
|
|
| CVE-2023-52163 CWE-862 | Digiever DS-2105 Pro Entry and action published by CISADigiever DS-2105 Pro Missing Authorization VulnerabilityDigiever DS-2105 Pro contains a missing authorization vulnerability which could allow for command injection via time_tzsetup.cgi.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-14733 CWE-787 | WatchGuard Firebox Entry and action published by CISAWatchGuard Firebox Out of Bounds Write VulnerabilityWatchGuard Fireware OS iked process contains an out of bounds write vulnerability in the OS iked process. This vulnerability may allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code and affects both the mobile user VPN with IKEv2 and the branch office VPN using IKEv2 when configured with a dynamic gateway peer.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-20393 CWE-20 | Cisco Multiple Products Entry and action published by CISACisco Multiple Products Improper Input Validation VulnerabilityCisco Secure Email Gateway, Secure Email, AsyncOS Software, and Web Manager appliances contains an improper input validation vulnerability that allows threat actors to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges on the underlying operating system of an affected appliance.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-40602 CWE-862, CWE-250 | SonicWall SMA1000 appliance Entry and action published by CISASonicWall SMA1000 Missing Authorization VulnerabilitySonicWall SMA1000 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that could allow for privilege escalation appliance management console (AMC) of affected devices.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-59374 CWE-506 | ASUS Live Update Entry and action published by CISAASUS Live Update Embedded Malicious Code VulnerabilityASUS Live Update contains an embedded malicious code vulnerability client were distributed with unauthorized modifications introduced through a supply chain compromise. The modified builds could cause devices meeting specific targeting conditions to perform unintended actions. The impacted product could be end-of-life (EoL) and/or end-of-service (EoS). Users should discontinue product utilization.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-59718 CWE-347 | Fortinet Multiple Products Entry and action published by CISAFortinet Multiple Products Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature VulnerabilityFortinet FortiOS, FortiSwitchMaster, FortiProxy, and FortiWeb contain an improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability that may allow an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the FortiCloud SSO login authentication via a crafted SAML message. Please be aware that CVE-2025-59719 pertains to the same problem and is mentioned in the same vendor advisory. Ensure to apply all patches mentioned in the advisory.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-14611 CWE-798 | Gladinet CentreStack and Triofox Entry and action published by CISAGladinet CentreStack and Triofox Hard Coded Cryptographic VulnerabilityGladinet CentreStack and TrioFox contain a hardcoded cryptographic keys vulnerability for their implementation of the AES cryptoscheme. This vulnerability degrades security for public exposed endpoints that may make use of it and may offer arbitrary local file inclusion when provided a specially crafted request without authentication.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-43529 CWE-416 | Apple Multiple Products Entry and action published by CISAApple Multiple Products Use-After-Free WebKit VulnerabilityApple iOS, iPadOS, macOS, and other Apple products contain a use-after-free vulnerability in WebKit. Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to memory corruption. This vulnerability could impact HTML parsers that use WebKit, including but not limited to Apple Safari and non-Apple products which rely on WebKit for HTML processing.
|
|
|
| CVE-2018-4063 CWE-434 | Sierra Wireless AirLink ALEOS Entry and action published by CISASierra Wireless AirLink ALEOS Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type VulnerabilitySierra Wireless AirLink ALEOS contains an unrestricted upload of file with dangerous type vulnerability. A specially crafted HTTP request can upload a file, resulting in executable code being uploaded, and routable, to the webserver. An attacker can make an authenticated HTTP request to trigger this vulnerability. The impacted product could be end-of-life (EoL) and/or end-of-service (EoS). Users should discontinue product utilization.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-14174 | Google Chromium Entry and action published by CISAGoogle Chromium Out of Bounds Memory Access VulnerabilityGoogle Chromium contains an out of bounds memory access vulnerability in ANGLE that could allow a remote attacker to perform out of bounds memory access 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-2025-58360 CWE-611 | OSGeo GeoServer Entry and action published by CISAOSGeo GeoServer Improper Restriction of XML External Entity Reference VulnerabilityOSGeo GeoServer contains an improper restriction of XML external entity reference vulnerability that occurs when the application accepts XML input through a specific endpoint /geoserver/wms operation GetMap and could allow an attacker to define external entities within the XML request.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-6218 CWE-22 | RARLAB WinRAR Entry and action published by CISARARLAB WinRAR Path Traversal VulnerabilityRARLAB WinRAR contains a path traversal vulnerability allowing an attacker to execute code in the context of the current user.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-62221 CWE-416 | Microsoft Windows Entry and action published by CISAMicrosoft Windows Use After Free VulnerabilityMicrosoft Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver contains a use after free vulnerability that can allow an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally.
|
|
|
| CVE-2022-37055 CWE-120 | D-Link Routers Entry and action published by CISAD-Link Routers Buffer Overflow VulnerabilityD-Link Routers contains a buffer overflow vulnerability that has a high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The impacted products could be end-of-life (EoL) and/or end-of-service (EoS). Users should discontinue product utilization.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-66644 CWE-78 | Array Networks ArrayOS AG Entry and action published by CISAArray Networks ArrayOS AG OS Command Injection VulnerabilityArray Networks ArrayOS AG contains an OS command injection vulnerability that could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary commands.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-55182 | Meta React Server Components Entry and action published by CISAMeta React Server Components Remote Code Execution VulnerabilityMeta React Server Components contains a remote code execution vulnerability that could allow unauthenticated remote code execution by exploiting a flaw in how React decodes payloads sent to React Server Function endpoints. Please note CVE-2025-66478 has been rejected, but it is associated with CVE-2025- 55182.
|
|
|
| CVE-2021-26828 CWE-434 | OpenPLC ScadaBR Entry and action published by CISAOpenPLC ScadaBR Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type VulnerabilityOpenPLC ScadaBR contains an unrestricted upload of file with dangerous type vulnerability that allows remote authenticated users to upload and execute arbitrary JSP files via view_edit.shtm.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-48572 | Android Framework Entry and action published by CISAAndroid Framework Privilege Escalation VulnerabilityAndroid Framework contains an unspecified vulnerability that allows for privilege escalation.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-48633 | Android Framework Entry and action published by CISAAndroid Framework Information Disclosure VulnerabilityAndroid Framework contains an unspecified vulnerability that allows for information disclosure.
|
|
|
| CVE-2021-26829 CWE-79 | OpenPLC ScadaBR Entry and action published by CISAOpenPLC ScadaBR Cross-site Scripting VulnerabilityOpenPLC ScadaBR contains a cross-site scripting vulnerability via system_settings.shtm.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-61757 CWE-306 | Oracle Fusion Middleware Entry and action published by CISAOracle Fusion Middleware Missing Authentication for Critical Function VulnerabilityOracle Fusion Middleware contains a missing authentication for critical function vulnerability, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to take over Identity Manager.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-13223 CWE-843 | Google Chromium V8 Entry and action published by CISAGoogle Chromium V8 Type Confusion VulnerabilityGoogle Chromium V8 contains a type confusion vulnerability that allows for heap corruption.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-58034 CWE-78 | Fortinet FortiWeb Entry and action published by CISAFortinet FortiWeb OS Command Injection VulnerabilityFortinet FortiWeb contains an OS command Injection vulnerability that may allow an authenticated attacker to execute unauthorized code on the underlying system via crafted HTTP requests or CLI commands.
|
|
|
| CVE-2025-64446 CWE-23 | Fortinet FortiWeb Entry and action published by CISAFortinet FortiWeb Path Traversal VulnerabilityFortinet FortiWeb contains a relative path traversal vulnerability that may allow an unauthenticated attacker to execute administrative commands on the system via crafted HTTP or HTTPS requests.
|
|
|
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
