01Program
A managed vulnerability program from discovery to verified closure
A managed program covering discovery, risk-based prioritization, remediation coordination and verification across infrastructure, cloud and applications.
- Name
- Vulnerability Management
- Line
- 01 · Cybersecurity
- Type
- Outcome program, combines several practices
01The problem
Scanning is easy and closure is hard.
Scanners are easy. Programs are hard. Untriaged findings pile up, teams argue about ownership, and the same criticals reappear quarter after quarter while exploitable paths hide in the noise.
02Scope
What the vulnerability management program covers.
- Asset discovery and coverage management
- Scanning across infrastructure, cloud and applications
- Exploitability-based prioritization
- Remediation coordination with owner SLAs
- Verified closure through retesting
- Executive trend reporting
03Approach
How a vulnerability management engagement runs.
Scanner-agnostic program design with manual validation from our [offensive security](/services/cybersecurity/penetration-testing) practice, separating the exploitable from the theoretical. Exploitation data from [threat intelligence](/services/cybersecurity/threat-intelligence) informs prioritization.
Know what you have
Asset discovery and ownership mapping first. A vulnerability program without an asset inventory cannot state its own coverage.
Prioritize by exploitability
Findings ranked by real-world exploitability, exposure and blast radius, not raw CVSS sorting.
Drive closure, verify fixes
Remediation SLAs per team, escalation that works, and retest-verified closure rather than ticket-status closure. Patching itself can be handled by our IT operations team.
04Outcomes
What the vulnerability management program is built to achieve.
- Asset coverage you can state with confidence
- Prioritization by exploitability and exposure, not raw CVSS
- Remediation SLAs tracked per team with executive reporting
- Verified closure: fixed means retested, not marked done
When this work fits
- Organizations with scanner output piling up and no agreed ownership of fixes
- IT teams where the same critical findings reappear after every scan cycle
- Companies needing to show auditors a working remediation process with evidence
- Security leaders who cannot state which assets are scanned and which are missed
05Questions
Vulnerability management: questions we are asked
A vulnerability assessment is a point-in-time scan and review that lists known weaknesses. A penetration test is manual, goal-driven work in which a tester exploits and chains weaknesses to show what an attacker could reach. Vulnerability management is the continuing program around both: asset inventory, regular scanning, prioritization, remediation tracking and verification of fixes. Most organizations need the program running all year, with penetration testing at intervals to find what scanners cannot.
CVSS base score is one input, and a weak one when used alone. Priority combines four questions. Is the flaw being exploited, as shown by the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog and by threat intelligence? How likely is exploitation in the near term, as estimated by EPSS? Is the asset reachable from the internet or a low-trust network? What does the asset hold or control? A medium-severity flaw on an exposed identity system can outrank a critical one on an isolated test server.
Remediation belongs to the system owner, and the program makes that ownership explicit. Each finding is routed to a named team with a remediation target agreed by asset class and severity, and overdue items escalate to a defined manager. We supply fix guidance, compensating controls where a patch cannot be applied, and exception records with an expiry date. If your IT team lacks capacity, patching can be carried out by our managed IT services team under your change process.
A ticket marked done is a claim. Closure is recorded only after the specific finding is retested: a targeted rescan for scanner-detected issues, or manual retesting for findings that were validated by hand. Verification also checks that the fix reached every affected instance, including cloned machines, container images and build templates, because flaws often return from an unpatched template. Reopened findings are tracked separately, so recurring causes such as a broken patch pipeline become visible.
Frequency follows the asset class and how fast it changes. Internet-facing systems warrant the most frequent external scanning, plus discovery of new hosts and services. Servers and network devices follow a regular authenticated cycle. Endpoints are best covered by agents that report continuously. Cloud accounts are checked through provider APIs as configuration changes. Applications are scanned in the release pipeline. Fragile or OT systems may need passive methods and maintenance windows. The schedule is set per class during onboarding and written into the program.
Often alongside
