# NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 RA-5 — Vulnerability Monitoring And Scanning - Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ra-5-vulnerability-monitoring-and-scanning - Section: [Compliance](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance) › [NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 Controls](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5) › RA — Risk Assessment - Last updated: 2026-06-05 - Publisher: iCompaas, Inc. (https://www.icompaas.com) **NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5**·Control `RA-5`·critical·Component: **Risk Assessment** ## What this control requires > Continuously monitor and scan systems and hosted applications for vulnerabilities using automated tools. Analyze reports, remediate issues based on risk, update scanning parameters, and share findings to prevent recurrence. This control supports the Vulnerability Management Console capability within the Risk Assessment family. > > — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Control RA-5 ### In plain English Continuously monitor and scan systems and hosted applications for vulnerabilities using automated tools. In practice, this means you can prove you security management-level controls on a defined cadence. ## Why it matters SP 800-53 is the catalogue every U.S. federal authorisation (FedRAMP, FISMA, CMMC) and most regulated industries point at. A missing control surfaces as a Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M) item that an Authorizing Official must approve before the Authority To Operate is granted or renewed. This control is rated **critical** in the source catalogue. Treat gaps here as production incidents in the risk register, not housekeeping. ## What an auditor looks for A 3PAO (FedRAMP) or Independent Assessor (NIST RMF) tests against NIST SP 800-53A assessment procedures. For each control they expect a documented implementation that addresses every assessment objective (Examine, Interview, Test) and an implementation summary in the System Security Plan. Within **Risk Assessment**, the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Control RA-5) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles. ## How to implement #### Vulnerability Management **Scanners.** Pair an unauthenticated scanner (Nessus / Qualys / Tenable.io) for external surface with an authenticated agent for OS/library CVEs on every host. **SLA.** Document remediation SLAs by CVSS / EPSS: critical 7 days, high 30 days, medium 90 days; report monthly trend to leadership. **Containers.** Scan images in CI (Trivy / Grype / Snyk Container) AND at runtime; block deploys on critical findings without exception. #### Secure Development **Pipeline.** Require code review, SAST (Semgrep / Snyk Code), SCA (Dependabot / Renovate), secret-scanning and IaC scanning in the merge pipeline. **Branch protection.** Protected branches enforce reviews, signed commits and passing CI before merge; document the protection rules as the control evidence. #### Code Review Testing **Pipeline.** Require at least one human reviewer plus passing CI (lint, type, unit, security scan) before merge — protected branches enforce this. ### Operational checklist - **Security.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Review.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Monitor.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Control.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Testing,.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Scope:** management, application, assessment, monitor, review, capability, applications, tools. ## Evidence to collect - **Code Repo Scan.** Source-control evidence — branch protection, required reviewers, CI status, SCA / SAST reports. Source control pipelines (GitHub, GitLab) enforce SDLC guardrails. Focus: Vulnerability Monitoring And Scanning. ## Common pitfalls - Scans that hit only the perimeter; missing authenticated scans of OS, runtime libs and base images so most CVEs are invisible. - CI security checks set to warn-only; the merge button is faster than the security feedback. ## How it maps to other frameworks Computed from shared tags, control component and key-operation subjects — handy when you are reconciling controls across an audit. - [**NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 3 3.7.4** — Maintenance Tools](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-171-rev-3/3-7-4-maintenance-tools) - [**CIS Controls v8 16.12** — Implement Code-Level Security Checks](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/cis-controls-v8/16-12-implement-code-level-security-checks) - [**ISO/IEC 27001:2022 A.8.28** — Secure coding](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-27001-2022/a-8-28-secure-coding) ## Related controls in NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 - [**Control SA-11(9)** — Interactive Application Security Testing](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-11-9-interactive-application-security-testing) - [**Control SA-11(1)** — Static Code Analysis](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-11-1-static-code-analysis) - [**Control MA-3** — Maintenance Tools](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ma-3-maintenance-tools) - [**Control RA-5(11)** — Public Disclosure Program](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ra-5-11-public-disclosure-program) - [**Control SA-5(5)** — Source Code](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sa-5-5-source-code) - [**Control RA-3(1)** — Supply Chain Risk Assessment](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ra-3-1-supply-chain-risk-assessment) ## References - [NIST Computer Security Resource Center — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/risk-management/sp800-53-controls) - Catalogue identifier: `Control RA-5` Topics: application securitylogging monitoringvulnerability managementsecure developmentcode review testingdevsecops ## Related compliance guidance - [NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5: a practical implementation guide for cloud teams](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5): Start with the full NIST SP 800-53 implementation guide — scope, roadmap, evidence and how the assessment runs. - [NIST SP 800-171 and CMMC: a practical guide to protecting CUI in the cloud](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-171-rev-3): If your obligation is protecting CUI in your own systems for a federal or defence contract, this derived subset — not the full catalogue — is the requirement. - [SOC 2 compliance: a practical implementation guide for cloud-native SaaS teams](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria): Most commercial SaaS already hold a SOC 2 Type 2, and FedRAMP 20x Class A is designed for providers that have one.