Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesUse CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog to identify vulnerabilities that deserve urgent attention, then use the applicable deadline to organize remediation work—not to replace asset validation, ownership, or operational judgment. The federal deadlines summarized in CISA’s FY 2025 FISMA assessment guide apply to federal agencies covered by Binding Operational Directive (BOD) 22-01; other organizations may adopt them as internal targets, but the directive does not automatically bind the private sector.
What a KEV listing tells you
CISA describes the KEV catalog as a living catalog of vulnerabilities known to have been exploited and carrying significant risk. A listing is therefore an urgent prioritization signal: it indicates that exploitation has occurred, not merely that a vulnerability is theoretically possible. It does not, by itself, prove that a particular asset in your environment is affected or exposed. Check the catalog entry against the product and version actually in use.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
CISA’s November 3, 2021 overview said 18,358 new CVEs were identified in 2020, of which 10,342 were classified as critical or high severity. It also reported that the initial KEV publication included approximately 200 vulnerabilities from 2017–2020 and 90 from 2021. These are historical figures from that 2021 overview, not current catalog totals. CISA’s 2021 overview explained the purpose of the directive: “The goal of BOD 22-01 is to enable federal agencies, as well as public and private sector organizations, to improve their vulnerability management practices and dramatically reduce their exposure to cyberattacks.”
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →How long do federal agencies have to remediate a KEV?
CISA’s FY 2025 Inspector General FISMA Metrics Evaluation Guide summarizes the federal remediation timeframes as follows: KEVs from 2021 and earlier are due within six months; all other KEVs are due within two weeks. This is a federal-agency requirement discussed in federal assessment guidance, not a universal legal deadline for every organization. BOD 22-01 directs covered federal agencies to review and update vulnerability-management procedures, remediate listed vulnerabilities, and report their status, as described in the Cyber Safety Review Board’s Log4j report.
For a non-federal organization, these timeframes can be adopted as an internal service-level target or used to inform risk-based prioritization. If you do so, identify them as your organization’s policy rather than implying that BOD 22-01 legally applies. Use the current catalog entry and applicable federal guidance when determining a covered agency’s obligation; a local exception or delayed maintenance window does not cancel a federal deadline.
Turn the deadline into an asset-aware workflow
- Match the finding to the catalog and inventory. Confirm the CVE, affected product, and affected version using current asset records. Investigate scanner findings that have not been validated before treating them as confirmed exposure.
- Set the right clock. For an organization covered by BOD 22-01, use the current CISA catalog entry and the relevant federal deadline category. For other organizations, set and label an internal target that reflects policy and risk.
- Assign the system and owners. Link the finding to a specific asset or service, its business or mission owner, and the technical owner responsible for remediation. An unowned finding is difficult to schedule, escalate, or close.
- Sequence work using context. Consider exposure, business or mission importance, patch availability, operational constraints, and whether interim mitigation is needed while a patch is tested. This is a practical prioritization approach, not a CISA-prescribed scoring formula.
- Plan, document, and close. Record the action, owner, due date, testing and maintenance plan, and evidence that remediation is complete. If work is blocked, document the reason, interim risk treatment, decision owner, and next review date. For covered agencies, tracking a blocker does not erase the federal deadline.
- Refresh the queue. CISA’s FY 2025 FISMA evaluation guide describes asset discovery every seven days, credentialed vulnerability scanning every 14 days, and vulnerability-detection signature updates at intervals no greater than 24 hours. These frequencies are federal assessment guidance; they are not universal mandates or a guarantee that every organization’s tools will find every affected asset.
Keep the queue accurate and auditable
CISA’s federal assessment guidance treats discovery, credentialed scanning, scan analysis, prioritization, patch testing, and patch management as connected parts of flaw remediation. The FY 2024 guide also addresses scanning and remediation context. In practice, a deadline is useful only when the underlying finding can be tied to an asset and moved through a traceable workflow.
Rank #2
For each KEV finding, retain a record of:
- whether the asset is affected and how that determination was made;
- the asset, service, owner, exposure, and relevant business or operational context;
- the planned remediation, accountable owner, target date, and testing or maintenance plan;
- any blocker, interim mitigation, approval or decision, and next review date; and
- the evidence used to verify closure.
This record is an operational recommendation based on CISA’s described discovery, scanning, analysis, prioritization, and remediation practices—not a quoted CISA checklist. It helps distinguish a verified exposure from a stale or mismatched finding and makes deadline decisions explainable later.
Choose tools and process controls that support the work
When evaluating a vulnerability-management process or its supporting tools, compare them on the capabilities that affect the full remediation path:
Rank #3
- Coverage: Can asset discovery and affected-version detection identify the systems that may match a KEV entry?
- Freshness: How soon are new catalog entries and updated detection signatures reflected in the workflow?
- Workflow: Can teams assign owners and due dates, track remediation status, and attach closure evidence?
- Operational fit: Does the process support patch testing, maintenance windows, rollback planning, and interim mitigation?
- Auditability: Can reviewers follow the match, prioritization decision, approval, and remediation evidence?
These are practical comparison criteria drawn from CISA’s descriptions of asset discovery, scanning, analysis, patch testing, and remediation; they are not vendor-certified metrics or a CISA scoring scheme. A tool can support the process, but it cannot decide whether an asset is affected or resolve an operational trade-off without reliable inventory and accountable owners.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
