Skip to main content
Pricing
Sign inRequest demo

FedRAMP 20x Accepted Vulnerability Information Example

Examine how accepted vulnerability records can pair technical evaluation fields with explicit rationale and accountable senior-official acceptance.

0 downloads|ZIP (HTML + JSON)|4.0 KB

What's inside

  • Distinguish accepted vulnerabilities from ordinary active findings
  • Trace technical evaluation into a documented acceptance rationale
  • Model accountable decision and acceptance metadata
  • Design concise risk summaries for necessary parties

Best fit

  • CISOs and risk owners
  • Vulnerability governance teams
  • Assessors and agency reviewers

Related topics

#Accepted Vulnerability#Accepted Vulnerability Info (AVI)#FedRAMP 20x#Risk Acceptance#Senior Official Acceptance#VER-RPT-AVI#Vulnerability Governance

Unlock this resource

Enter your work email to download FedRAMP 20x Accepted Vulnerability Information Example.

What accepted vulnerability information adds

This pair contains three synthetic accepted vulnerability records. Each begins with familiar vulnerability-detail fields—tracking identifier, detection and evaluation timing, internet reachability, likely exploitability, and rating—then adds an acceptance rationale and a senior-official acceptance record.

The examples illustrate three fictional decision patterns: temporary compatibility with an agency integration, constrained local exploitability, and dependence on an upstream vendor without an available fix. They show how context might be explained; they are not recommended justifications or conclusions. FedRAMP's 2026 rules require a vulnerability that is not, or will not be, fully mitigated or remediated within 192 days of evaluation to be categorized as accepted. Categorization does not make the vulnerability safe, resolved, or exempt from scrutiny.

Acceptance is an accountable risk decision

A useful accepted-vulnerability record should make the residual risk understandable. Reviewers need to know what remains exposed, the likely impact on federal customer data, why remediation is not presently occurring, what mitigations constrain the risk, and who is accountable for the decision.

Use this pair to test how technical and governance information stay connected across APIs and human-readable reports. When adapting the structure, verify dates and ratings, avoid vague rationale, document planned risk reduction, and revisit whether continued acceptance remains supportable as conditions change. The example must not be used to justify accepting a real finding; actual decisions require offering-specific evidence, current threat context, responsible disclosure, and applicable rules.

Synthetic example and current status

The vulnerabilities, technical conditions, agency dependency, mitigations, officials, approvals, and risk decisions in these 2026-07-27 files are fictional. They are not live Boundera security, production, agency, authorization, or certification facts. Check the official FedRAMP Marketplace record for current status.

Frequently asked questions

Does accepted mean a vulnerability is remediated?

No. It means the residual risk is being carried under a documented and accountable decision.

Why does the 192-day period matter?

Current rules require vulnerabilities that will not be fully mitigated or remediated within that period to be categorized as accepted.

Are the named officials and acceptance decisions real?

No. They are synthetic example data and do not describe Boundera personnel or decisions.

Put this resource to work

Turn this resource into a live FedRAMP workflow.

Boundera connects the evidence, gaps, POA&Ms, and continuous monitoring work behind the document.

Request demo

Related resources