Audit-ready vulnerability remediation evidence, built as you go
When an auditor asks you to prove a finding was fixed, you should export rather than dig. Evidence that assembles itself as remediation happens — with an integrity hash anyone can check.
Audit week has a familiar shape. Someone asks for proof that a finding from eight months ago was remediated, and the next three days disappear into Slack threads, scanner exports, and screenshots stitched together to reconstruct a story nobody recorded at the time. The work was probably done. Proving it after the fact is the expensive part.
The fix is to stop treating evidence as something you assemble for the audit. Capture it as remediation happens, and the audit becomes an export.
What an auditor can actually check
A screenshot proves someone took a screenshot. Real remediation evidence answers four questions in a form a third party can verify: what was found, what was done, how the fix was independently confirmed, and whether anyone tampered with the record since. Pack those together — the finding, the re-test method, the before-and-after exposure, the approving operator, and a SHA-256 integrity hash — and you have something that survives scrutiny instead of inviting more of it.
- Finding
- CVE-2024-3094Malicious backdoor in xz-utils liblzma
- Independent re-test
- PASS
- Modeled exposure
- $2.1M$0
f0613bdc6ef9…61aff8Download the package, then check it yourself on the verify page. The published hash above is the one your browser re-derives — nothing is sent anywhere.
That card is drawn from our public sample package: the package ID and SHA-256 are real, and the exposure is the modeled P95 figure the package itself carries (FAIR on synthetic inputs — illustrative, never a measured loss). That hash is the whole argument. An auditor downloads the package, recomputes the SHA-256, and either it matches what’s printed on the certificate or it doesn’t. There’s no chain of “trust me” between the fix and the proof — the math closes the gap.
Evidence that’s already written when they ask
Because each verified fix seals its own package the moment it passes, the evidence exists before anyone requests it. One remediation maps to every framework you report against, so you answer a control question by exporting the relevant packages rather than rebuilding them. The auditor gets proof they can check independently, and your team gets its three days back.
The difference between digging and exporting is whether you decided to capture the proof while the fix was fresh. See a full sample package or verify one yourself.
Common questions
What actually counts as remediation evidence in an audit?
The finding, the fix, the independent re-test method, the exposure before and after, who approved the closure, and an integrity hash. A closed ticket and a screenshot show that work was logged; they don't show the vulnerability is gone or that the record wasn't edited afterward.
How is the evidence kept tamper-evident?
Each package carries SHA-256 integrity hashes, with optional signed manifests, so any change to its contents is detectable. The auditor doesn't have to trust your word — they recompute the hash and confirm the package is byte-for-byte what you sealed.
Can one fix satisfy multiple frameworks?
Yes. A single verified remediation maps to every framework you report against, so the same proof serves SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI, and the rest without re-collecting it for each audit.
A closed ticket isn't proof
Bring a finding you closed last quarter. We'll show you whether the fix actually held.
Book a demo