{"id": "trtp-69eb733f7292", "instruction": "What are the phases of the vulnerability management lifecycle?", "output": "The vulnerability management lifecycle consists of continuous phases: (1) Asset Discovery - identify and inventory all assets including hardware, software, cloud resources, and shadow IT. (2) Vulnerability Identification - use scanners, penetration tests, and threat intelligence to find vulnerabilities. (3) Vulnerability Assessment - evaluate each vulnerability's severity using CVSS, EPSS, and environmental factors. (4) Risk Analysis - combine vulnerability severity with asset criticality, threat intelligence, and business impact. (5) Remediation Planning - prioritize vulnerabilities and assign to appropriate teams with deadlines. (6) Remediation Implementation - apply patches, configuration changes, or compensating controls. (7) Verification - rescan to confirm vulnerabilities are fixed and no regressions occurred. (8) Continuous Monitoring - maintain ongoing visibility through regular scanning and threat intel integration. The cycle repeats continuously as new vulnerabilities are discovered.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-vulnerability-management-lifecycle", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595250Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595275Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595275Z"}
{"id": "trtp-74ed7abc7ed2", "instruction": "How do you build an effective vulnerability management program?", "output": "Building an effective VM program requires: Foundation: (1) Executive sponsorship and defined ownership, (2) Comprehensive asset inventory - you can't protect what you don't know about, (3) Defined roles and responsibilities for remediation teams. Process: (4) Regular scanning cadence (continuous preferred, minimum weekly for critical assets), (5) Risk-based prioritization framework combining CVSS, EPSS, asset criticality, and threat intel, (6) Defined SLAs for remediation by severity (Critical: 24-72 hours, High: 7-30 days, Medium: 30-90 days). Technology: (7) Vulnerability scanner deployment (authenticated scans for accuracy), (8) Integration with ticketing systems for tracking, (9) Dashboards for visibility and metrics. Maturity: (10) Exception management process, (11) Metrics tracking (MTTR, vulnerability density, SLA compliance), (12) Regular program reviews and improvement. Success Factor: Focus on risk reduction outcomes, not just scan counts.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-vulnerability-management-lifecycle", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595250Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595293Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595293Z"}
{"id": "trtp-b9db2f77f278", "instruction": "What is the difference between vulnerability assessment and penetration testing?", "output": "Vulnerability assessment and penetration testing serve different purposes: Vulnerability Assessment: (1) Automated scanning to identify known vulnerabilities, (2) Broad coverage across many systems, (3) Uses signature-based detection (CVEs, misconfigurations), (4) Typically non-intrusive, (5) Run frequently (weekly/continuous), (6) Outputs list of vulnerabilities with severity scores. Penetration Testing: (1) Manual, skilled testing simulating real attacks, (2) Focused, deep testing of specific targets, (3) Attempts actual exploitation to prove impact, (4) Can be intrusive (may cause disruptions), (5) Run periodically (annually, quarterly), (6) Outputs proof of exploitation with business impact. Complementary Use: VA provides breadth - find all known vulnerabilities across the environment. Pentest provides depth - prove exploitability and test defenses. VA finds CVEs, pentest finds logic flaws and chained attacks. Both needed for comprehensive security assessment.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-vulnerability-management-lifecycle", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595250Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595302Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595302Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f8900e0c15f6", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Vulnerability Management Lifecycle?", "output": "Vulnerability Management Lifecycle: The vulnerability management lifecycle is a continuous process for identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and remediating security vulnerabilities across an organization's assets. It consists of phases: (1) Asset Discovery - inventory all systems, applications, and components, (2) Vulnerability Identification - scan and assess for known vulnerabilities, (3) Vulnerability Assessment - evaluate severity, exploitability, and impact, (4) Risk Analysis - determine risk based on threat context and asset criticality, (5) Remediation Planning - prioritize and plan fixes, (6) Remediation Implementation - apply patches, configurations, or compensating controls, (7) Verification - confirm vulnerabilities are fixed, (8) Continuous Monitoring - ongoing scanning and assessment.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Security program foundation\n- Compliance requirements\n- Risk reduction\n- Attack surface management", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-vulnerability-management-lifecycle", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595250Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595330Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595330Z"}
{"id": "trtp-80a9ccf11046", "instruction": "What are best practices for Vulnerability Management Lifecycle?", "output": "Best practices for Vulnerability Management Lifecycle:\n\n1. Maintain accurate asset inventory\n2. Scan continuously not just periodically\n3. Prioritize based on risk not just severity\n4. Track metrics to measure improvement\n\nThe vulnerability management lifecycle is a continuous process for identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and remediating security vulnerabilities across an organization's assets. It consists of phases: (1) Asset Discovery - inventory all systems, applications, and components, (2) Vulnerability Identification - scan and assess for known vulnerabilities, (3) Vulnerability Assessment - evaluate severity, exploitability, and impact, (4) Risk Analysis - determine risk based on threat context and asset criticality, (5) Remediation Planning - prioritize and plan fixes, (6) Remediation Implementation - apply patches, configurations, or compensating controls, (7) Verification - confirm vulnerabilities are fixed, (8) Continuous Monitoring - ongoing scanning and assessment.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-vulnerability-management-lifecycle", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595250Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595350Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595350Z"}
{"id": "trtp-96bf620abf5b", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Vulnerability Management Lifecycle?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Vulnerability Management Lifecycle:\n\n- Incomplete asset inventory misses vulnerabilities\n- Prioritizing by CVSS alone ignores context\n- Not verifying remediation leaves gaps\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Maintain accurate asset inventory\n- Scan continuously not just periodically\n- Prioritize based on risk not just severity", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-vulnerability-management-lifecycle", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595250Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595365Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595365Z"}
{"id": "trtp-72e88a9d6a57", "instruction": "What are the use cases for Vulnerability Management Lifecycle?", "output": "Use cases for Vulnerability Management Lifecycle:\n\n- Security program foundation\n- Compliance requirements\n- Risk reduction\n- Attack surface management\n\nThe vulnerability management lifecycle is a continuous process for identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and remediating security vulnerabilities across an organization's assets. It consists of phases: (1) Asset Discovery - inventory all systems, applications, and components, (2) Vulnerability Identification - scan and assess for known vulnerabilities, (3) Vulnerability Assessment - evaluate severity, exploitability, and impact, (4) Risk Analysis - determine risk based on threat context and asset criticality, (5) Remediation Planning - prioritize and plan fixes, (6) Remediation Implementation - apply patches, configurations, or compensating controls, (7) Verification - confirm vulnerabilities are fixed, (8) Continuous Monitoring - ongoing scanning and assessment.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-vulnerability-management-lifecycle", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595250Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595378Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595378Z"}
{"id": "trtp-26e4f1f8b7c3", "instruction": "How does risk-based vulnerability management differ from traditional VM?", "output": "Traditional VM vs Risk-Based VM: Traditional VM: (1) Prioritizes by CVSS score alone, (2) Treats all Critical vulnerabilities equally, (3) No business context consideration, (4) Results in alert fatigue and misallocated resources, (5) Fix everything Critical, then High, then Medium. Risk-Based VM: (1) Combines multiple factors: CVSS + EPSS + asset criticality + exposure + threat intel, (2) A Medium on crown jewels may rank higher than Critical on test system, (3) Business context drives prioritization, (4) Focuses resources on actual risk, (5) Fix what matters most first. Risk Calculation: Risk = Likelihood \u00d7 Impact. Likelihood factors: EPSS score, exploit availability, threat actor interest, exposure (internet-facing vs internal). Impact factors: Asset criticality, data sensitivity, business function, regulatory implications. Example: CVE with CVSS 9.8 but no known exploit on isolated system = lower risk. CVE with CVSS 7.5 actively exploited on internet-facing server with customer data = higher risk.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-risk-based-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595395Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595407Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595407Z"}
{"id": "trtp-179be5933320", "instruction": "What factors should influence vulnerability prioritization?", "output": "Vulnerability prioritization factors: Vulnerability Characteristics: (1) CVSS base score - technical severity, (2) EPSS score - probability of exploitation in next 30 days, (3) Exploit availability - PoC, weaponized, in-the-wild, (4) KEV status - CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities, (5) Threat actor interest - APT targeting this CVE. Asset Context: (6) Asset criticality - crown jewels vs commodity systems, (7) Data sensitivity - PII, financial, IP exposure, (8) Business function - revenue-generating, customer-facing, (9) Regulatory scope - PCI, HIPAA, SOX implications. Exposure: (10) Network exposure - internet-facing vs internal, (11) Authentication requirements - unauthenticated access, (12) Compensating controls - WAF, IPS, segmentation. Prioritization Formula: High Priority = (High EPSS OR KEV OR Active Exploitation) AND (Critical Asset OR Internet-Facing OR Sensitive Data). Medium Priority = High CVSS without active exploitation on standard assets. Lower Priority = Low EPSS, no exploit, internal-only, non-critical assets.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-risk-based-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595395Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595415Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595415Z"}
{"id": "trtp-35d9ea030bda", "instruction": "How do you calculate risk for vulnerability prioritization?", "output": "Vulnerability risk calculation approaches: Simple Formula: Risk = Likelihood \u00d7 Impact. Likelihood Scoring (1-5): (1) No known exploit, low EPSS (<1%), (2) PoC exists, EPSS 1-5%, (3) Weaponized exploit, EPSS 5-20%, (4) Active exploitation reported, EPSS 20-50%, (5) Widespread exploitation, KEV listed, EPSS >50%. Impact Scoring (1-5): (1) Non-critical asset, no sensitive data, (2) Standard business system, limited data, (3) Important system, some sensitive data, (4) Critical system, sensitive data, customer-facing, (5) Crown jewel, PII/financial data, regulatory scope. Risk Matrix: Score 20-25: Critical Risk - immediate action, Score 12-19: High Risk - address within SLA, Score 6-11: Medium Risk - planned remediation, Score 1-5: Low Risk - accept or scheduled fix. Advanced Approach: Integrate EPSS percentile, use machine learning for asset criticality, automate threat intel correlation, consider compensating controls in risk reduction.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-risk-based-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595395Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595422Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595422Z"}
{"id": "trtp-5b25e70e7db5", "instruction": "Explain Risk-Based Vulnerability Management in vulnerability management.", "output": "Risk-Based Vulnerability Management: Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (RBVM) prioritizes vulnerabilities based on actual risk to the organization rather than just technical severity. Risk is calculated by combining vulnerability severity, exploit availability, threat actor interest, asset criticality, exposure, and business impact. RBVM recognizes that not all critical CVSS vulnerabilities pose equal risk - a Critical vulnerability on an isolated test system is lower risk than a High vulnerability on an internet-facing production server.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Prioritization at scale\n- Resource optimization\n- Business-aligned security\n- Executive reporting", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-risk-based-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595395Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595435Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595435Z"}
{"id": "trtp-b780de097db2", "instruction": "What are best practices for Risk-Based Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Best practices for Risk-Based Vulnerability Management:\n\n1. Factor in asset criticality and business context\n2. Integrate threat intelligence for exploit availability\n3. Use EPSS alongside CVSS\n4. Automate risk scoring where possible\n\nRisk-Based Vulnerability Management (RBVM) prioritizes vulnerabilities based on actual risk to the organization rather than just technical severity. Risk is calculated by combining vulnerability severity, exploit availability, threat actor interest, asset criticality, exposure, and business impact. RBVM recognizes that not all critical CVSS vulnerabilities pose equal risk - a Critical vulnerability on an isolated test system is lower risk than a High vulnerability on an internet-facing production server.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-risk-based-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595395Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595450Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595450Z"}
{"id": "trtp-65b95753630c", "instruction": "What mistakes should you avoid with Risk-Based Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Risk-Based Vulnerability Management:\n\n- Relying solely on CVSS scores\n- Not maintaining accurate asset criticality data\n- Ignoring threat intelligence context\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Factor in asset criticality and business context\n- Integrate threat intelligence for exploit availability\n- Use EPSS alongside CVSS", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-risk-based-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595395Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595463Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595463Z"}
{"id": "trtp-397c1a4ae72d", "instruction": "What scenarios require Risk-Based Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Use cases for Risk-Based Vulnerability Management:\n\n- Prioritization at scale\n- Resource optimization\n- Business-aligned security\n- Executive reporting\n\nRisk-Based Vulnerability Management (RBVM) prioritizes vulnerabilities based on actual risk to the organization rather than just technical severity. Risk is calculated by combining vulnerability severity, exploit availability, threat actor interest, asset criticality, exposure, and business impact. RBVM recognizes that not all critical CVSS vulnerabilities pose equal risk - a Critical vulnerability on an isolated test system is lower risk than a High vulnerability on an internet-facing production server.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-risk-based-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595395Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595486Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595486Z"}
{"id": "trtp-b618f9ec1b14", "instruction": "What is the difference between a vulnerability, weakness, threat, and risk?", "output": "Security terminology distinctions: Vulnerability: A specific flaw in a system that can be exploited. Has a CVE identifier. Example: CVE-2021-44228 (Log4Shell) - specific flaw in Log4j. Weakness: A type or class of flaw (CWE). General pattern that leads to vulnerabilities. Example: CWE-502 (Deserialization of Untrusted Data) - the weakness class Log4Shell belongs to. Threat: A potential danger that could exploit vulnerabilities. Includes threat actors (APTs, criminals), malware, natural disasters. Example: Ransomware gangs targeting Log4Shell. Risk: The likelihood and impact of a threat exploiting a vulnerability. Risk = Likelihood \u00d7 Impact. Example: High risk if Log4Shell exists on internet-facing server with no WAF. Exposure: The state of being vulnerable to a specific threat. Example: Running vulnerable Log4j version on production systems. Exploit: Code or technique that takes advantage of a vulnerability. Example: Log4Shell JNDI injection payload.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-vulnerability-management-terminology", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595499Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595510Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595510Z"}
{"id": "trtp-bb2d1421605f", "instruction": "What is attack surface and how does it relate to vulnerability management?", "output": "Attack surface in vulnerability management: Definition: The sum of all points where an attacker could attempt to enter or extract data from a system. Components: External attack surface: Internet-facing services, APIs, web applications, cloud resources. Internal attack surface: Internal applications, databases, file shares, network services. Human attack surface: Employees susceptible to phishing, social engineering. Software attack surface: Third-party components, libraries, dependencies. VM Relationship: (1) VM must cover entire attack surface - unknown assets can't be protected. (2) Attack surface defines scanning scope. (3) Larger attack surface = more potential vulnerabilities. (4) Reducing attack surface reduces vulnerability exposure. Attack Surface Management (ASM): Continuous discovery of internet-facing assets, identify shadow IT, monitor for exposed services, integrate with VM for complete coverage. Priority: Vulnerabilities on larger attack surface exposure are higher risk - internet-facing vulnerabilities before internal-only.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-vulnerability-management-terminology", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595499Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595517Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595517Z"}
{"id": "trtp-381b0b9468ef", "instruction": "What is the difference between a proof of concept and weaponized exploit?", "output": "Exploit maturity levels: Proof of Concept (PoC): (1) Demonstrates vulnerability is exploitable, (2) Often unreliable or requires specific conditions, (3) May only work in lab environment, (4) Published by researchers to prove impact, (5) CVSS Exploit Code Maturity: Proof-of-Concept (P). Weaponized Exploit: (1) Reliable, works consistently, (2) Packaged for easy use (Metasploit module, exploit kit), (3) May include evasion techniques, (4) Used by attackers in real attacks, (5) CVSS Exploit Code Maturity: Functional (F) or High (H). In-the-Wild Exploitation: (1) Actively used in attacks against real targets, (2) Confirmed by threat intel, CISA KEV, (3) Highest urgency for remediation, (4) May have multiple exploit variants. VM Implications: No known exploit: Lower priority, monitor for changes. PoC available: Elevated priority, patch soon. Weaponized/In-wild: Highest priority, immediate action. Factor exploit maturity into risk scoring alongside CVSS and asset criticality.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-vulnerability-management-terminology", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595499Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595525Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595525Z"}
{"id": "trtp-2223e2573ed4", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Vulnerability Management Terminology?", "output": "Vulnerability Management Terminology: Clear terminology is essential for effective vulnerability management communication. A vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited. A weakness (CWE) is a flaw type that may lead to vulnerabilities. A threat is a potential danger that could exploit a vulnerability. Risk is the likelihood and impact of a threat exploiting a vulnerability. An exploit is code or technique that takes advantage of a vulnerability. Attack surface is the sum of all points where an attacker could attempt entry.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Clear communication\n- Accurate reporting\n- Vendor coordination\n- Training and awareness", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-vulnerability-management-terminology", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595499Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595537Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595537Z"}
{"id": "trtp-5c35e072664f", "instruction": "What are best practices for Vulnerability Management Terminology?", "output": "Best practices for Vulnerability Management Terminology:\n\n1. Use consistent terminology across teams\n2. Reference industry standards (CVE, CWE, CVSS)\n3. Distinguish between vulnerability and weakness\n4. Clarify risk vs vulnerability in executive communications\n\nClear terminology is essential for effective vulnerability management communication. A vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited. A weakness (CWE) is a flaw type that may lead to vulnerabilities. A threat is a potential danger that could exploit a vulnerability. Risk is the likelihood and impact of a threat exploiting a vulnerability. An exploit is code or technique that takes advantage of a vulnerability. Attack surface is the sum of all points where an attacker could attempt entry.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-vulnerability-management-terminology", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595499Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595551Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595551Z"}
{"id": "trtp-a78c4463e00f", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Vulnerability Management Terminology?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Vulnerability Management Terminology:\n\n- Conflating vulnerability with threat\n- Using severity and risk interchangeably\n- Inconsistent terminology causing confusion\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Use consistent terminology across teams\n- Reference industry standards (CVE, CWE, CVSS)\n- Distinguish between vulnerability and weakness", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-vulnerability-management-terminology", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595499Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595563Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595563Z"}
{"id": "trtp-53a9a5635e74", "instruction": "What are the use cases for Vulnerability Management Terminology?", "output": "Use cases for Vulnerability Management Terminology:\n\n- Clear communication\n- Accurate reporting\n- Vendor coordination\n- Training and awareness\n\nClear terminology is essential for effective vulnerability management communication. A vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited. A weakness (CWE) is a flaw type that may lead to vulnerabilities. A threat is a potential danger that could exploit a vulnerability. Risk is the likelihood and impact of a threat exploiting a vulnerability. An exploit is code or technique that takes advantage of a vulnerability. Attack surface is the sum of all points where an attacker could attempt entry.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-vulnerability-management-terminology", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595499Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595575Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595575Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ace681ea9bfd", "instruction": "What is coordinated vulnerability disclosure and how does it work?", "output": "Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) process: Discovery: Researcher finds vulnerability through testing, code review, or fuzzing. Initial Report: (1) Contact vendor security team (security@vendor.com, bug bounty program), (2) Provide technical details: affected versions, reproduction steps, impact assessment, (3) Request acknowledgment within 7 days. Coordination Period: (4) Vendor confirms and triages vulnerability, (5) Vendor develops and tests patch, (6) Standard timeline: 90 days from initial report, (7) Researcher and vendor agree on disclosure date. CVE Assignment: (8) Request CVE from CNA (vendor or MITRE), (9) CVE reserved until public disclosure. Public Disclosure: (10) Vendor releases patch and advisory, (11) Researcher may publish details/writeup, (12) Coordinated timing protects users. Extensions: Vendors may request timeline extension for complex issues. Researchers may shorten if vulnerability is being exploited. CERT/CC can mediate disputes between researchers and vendors.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595584Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595594Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595594Z"}
{"id": "trtp-9de2bab3cf8d", "instruction": "What are the different vulnerability disclosure models?", "output": "Vulnerability disclosure models: Coordinated Disclosure: (1) Private report to vendor, (2) Time-limited embargo (typically 90 days), (3) Public disclosure coordinated with patch release, (4) Industry standard, balances security. Full Disclosure: (1) Immediate public disclosure without vendor notification, (2) Philosophy: users deserve to know risks immediately, (3) Puts pressure on vendors to patch quickly, (4) Controversial: can enable attackers before patch exists. No Disclosure: (1) Researcher never discloses to vendor or public, (2) May sell to governments, exploit brokers, (3) Vulnerability remains unknown and unpatched, (4) Highest risk for users. Vendor-Handled: (1) Vendor discovers internally or receives private report, (2) Vendor controls disclosure timeline, (3) May never publicly disclose (silent patches), (4) Limited transparency. Google Project Zero Policy: 90-day standard, 7-day grace for in-development patch, 7-day deadline if actively exploited. Outcome matters: Goal is getting vulnerabilities fixed with minimum user harm.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595584Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595601Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595601Z"}
{"id": "trtp-4c8af5f34888", "instruction": "How should organizations handle vulnerability reports from external researchers?", "output": "Handling external vulnerability reports: Preparation: (1) Publish security contact (security@company.com), (2) Create security.txt file (/.well-known/security.txt), (3) Define internal triage process, (4) Consider bug bounty program. Initial Response: (5) Acknowledge receipt within 24-48 hours, (6) Thank researcher for responsible reporting, (7) Provide case/ticket number for tracking. Triage: (8) Validate the vulnerability, (9) Assess severity and impact, (10) Determine affected systems and versions, (11) Communicate status to researcher. Remediation: (12) Develop and test fix, (13) Coordinate disclosure timeline with researcher, (14) Request CVE if warranted, (15) Provide status updates during process. Disclosure: (16) Release patch and advisory, (17) Credit researcher (with permission), (18) Close communication loop with researcher. Don'ts: Don't threaten researchers with legal action. Don't ignore reports hoping they go away. Don't silently patch without acknowledgment.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595584Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595608Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595608Z"}
{"id": "trtp-fe1230d225bf", "instruction": "Describe Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure for vulnerability management.", "output": "Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure: Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) is a process where security researchers report vulnerabilities to vendors privately, allowing time for patch development before public disclosure. The process involves: researcher discovers vulnerability, notifies vendor confidentially, vendor develops and tests fix, coordinated public disclosure with patch availability. Standard timelines are typically 90 days. CVD balances security research incentives with protecting users from exploitation.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Responsible security research\n- Vendor-researcher cooperation\n- Minimizing exploitation window\n- Industry collaboration", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595584Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595620Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595620Z"}
{"id": "trtp-e64f7a292877", "instruction": "How should organizations implement Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure?", "output": "Best practices for Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure:\n\n1. Follow established disclosure timelines (90 days standard)\n2. Provide clear technical details to vendors\n3. Coordinate disclosure timing with patch release\n4. Request CVE during process\n\nCoordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) is a process where security researchers report vulnerabilities to vendors privately, allowing time for patch development before public disclosure. The process involves: researcher discovers vulnerability, notifies vendor confidentially, vendor develops and tests fix, coordinated public disclosure with patch availability. Standard timelines are typically 90 days. CVD balances security research incentives with protecting users from exploitation.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595584Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595634Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595634Z"}
{"id": "trtp-72f722af8b40", "instruction": "What mistakes should you avoid with Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure:\n\n- Vendors ignoring reports without disclosure deadline\n- Premature public disclosure before patch\n- Not following up on unresponsive vendors\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Follow established disclosure timelines (90 days standard)\n- Provide clear technical details to vendors\n- Coordinate disclosure timing with patch release", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595584Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595646Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595646Z"}
{"id": "trtp-faaae2b3bcf1", "instruction": "When should you use Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure?", "output": "Use cases for Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure:\n\n- Responsible security research\n- Vendor-researcher cooperation\n- Minimizing exploitation window\n- Industry collaboration\n\nCoordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) is a process where security researchers report vulnerabilities to vendors privately, allowing time for patch development before public disclosure. The process involves: researcher discovers vulnerability, notifies vendor confidentially, vendor develops and tests fix, coordinated public disclosure with patch availability. Standard timelines are typically 90 days. CVD balances security research incentives with protecting users from exploitation.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595584Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595658Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595658Z"}
{"id": "trtp-c4da20d0eda0", "instruction": "What is the difference between a bug bounty program and a vulnerability disclosure program?", "output": "Bug Bounty Program (BBP) vs Vulnerability Disclosure Program (VDP): Bug Bounty Program: (1) Offers monetary rewards for valid vulnerabilities, (2) Structured reward tiers (Critical: $10K+, High: $5K, Medium: $1K, Low: $100-500), (3) Attracts skilled researchers motivated by compensation, (4) Higher volume of reports, more competitive, (5) Requires budget allocation, (6) May use managed platform (HackerOne, Bugcrowd). Vulnerability Disclosure Program: (1) No monetary rewards (hall of fame, swag possible), (2) Provides channel for reporting without legal risk, (3) Lower volume, often one-off reporters, (4) Minimal cost to operate, (5) Safe harbor provisions for researchers, (6) Foundation before starting bug bounty. Progression: Organizations often start with VDP, graduate to bug bounty as security matures. VDP shows willingness to receive reports, BBP actively incentivizes hunting. Both need: clear scope, responsive team, defined process, safe harbor. Success metric: Valid vulnerabilities found and fixed, not report volume.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-bug-bounty-programs", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595667Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595676Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595676Z"}
{"id": "trtp-011a789df2b6", "instruction": "How do you structure bug bounty rewards and scope?", "output": "Bug bounty structure elements: Scope Definition: In-scope: Production web applications, APIs, mobile apps. May include: staging environments, specific IP ranges. Out-of-scope: Third-party services, physical attacks, social engineering, DoS testing. Clearly list: domains, apps, acceptable test types. Reward Tiers (example): Critical ($10,000-$50,000): RCE, auth bypass, SQL injection with data access, privilege escalation to admin. High ($2,000-$10,000): Stored XSS, IDOR accessing other users' data, SSRF with internal access. Medium ($500-$2,000): Reflected XSS, CSRF on sensitive actions, information disclosure. Low ($100-$500): Self-XSS, missing security headers, minor info leaks. Rules of Engagement: No automated scanning without approval, don't access other users' data, report and stop upon finding vulnerability, no public disclosure without coordination. Safe Harbor: Good-faith researchers protected from legal action, defined what 'good faith' means, covers testing within scope only. Response SLAs: Initial response within 24-48 hours, triage decision within 5 business days, bounty payment within 30 days of fix.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-bug-bounty-programs", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595667Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595684Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595684Z"}
{"id": "trtp-7d6dcbca8685", "instruction": "What makes a bug bounty program successful?", "output": "Bug bounty success factors: Program Setup: (1) Clear, comprehensive scope documentation, (2) Competitive reward structure for market, (3) Responsive security team to triage, (4) Integration with internal VM workflow, (5) Safe harbor legal protection. Researcher Experience: (6) Fast initial response (<48 hours), (7) Transparent communication on status, (8) Fair evaluation and payment, (9) Clear duplicate policies, (10) Public recognition option. Internal Process: (11) Dedicated triage resources, (12) Escalation path for critical findings, (13) Remediation team integration, (14) Metrics tracking and improvement, (15) Executive visibility and support. Metrics: Report volume and valid percentage, Time to first response, Time to triage decision, Time to remediation, Researcher satisfaction, Cost per valid vulnerability (compare to pentest). Common Failures: Scope too narrow - researchers lose interest. Rewards too low - skilled researchers go elsewhere. Slow response - researchers disengage. No safe harbor - legal fear prevents reporting. Not fixing bugs - why report if nothing changes?", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-bug-bounty-programs", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595667Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595691Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595691Z"}
{"id": "trtp-9ea7e841a32e", "instruction": "What is Bug Bounty Programs?", "output": "Bug Bounty Programs: Bug bounty programs incentivize external security researchers to find and report vulnerabilities by offering monetary rewards. Programs define scope (what systems are testable), rules of engagement, reward tiers based on severity, and safe harbor provisions protecting researchers. Platforms like HackerOne and Bugcrowd facilitate program management. Bug bounties complement internal security testing by leveraging diverse external expertise and providing continuous testing coverage.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Crowdsourced security testing\n- Continuous vulnerability discovery\n- Security researcher engagement\n- Demonstrating security commitment", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-bug-bounty-programs", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595667Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595703Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595703Z"}
{"id": "trtp-0e0b43f0df59", "instruction": "What are the recommended approaches for Bug Bounty Programs?", "output": "Best practices for Bug Bounty Programs:\n\n1. Define clear scope and rules\n2. Pay fair rewards for valid findings\n3. Respond quickly to submissions\n4. Provide safe harbor for good-faith research\n\nBug bounty programs incentivize external security researchers to find and report vulnerabilities by offering monetary rewards. Programs define scope (what systems are testable), rules of engagement, reward tiers based on severity, and safe harbor provisions protecting researchers. Platforms like HackerOne and Bugcrowd facilitate program management. Bug bounties complement internal security testing by leveraging diverse external expertise and providing continuous testing coverage.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-bug-bounty-programs", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595667Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595717Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595717Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f59a9b79e4c6", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Bug Bounty Programs?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Bug Bounty Programs:\n\n- Unclear scope causes confusion\n- Low rewards attract low-quality reports\n- Slow response discourages researchers\n- Not integrating findings into VM program\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Define clear scope and rules\n- Pay fair rewards for valid findings\n- Respond quickly to submissions", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-bug-bounty-programs", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595667Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595729Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595729Z"}
{"id": "trtp-3632cb9da3ac", "instruction": "What are the use cases for Bug Bounty Programs?", "output": "Use cases for Bug Bounty Programs:\n\n- Crowdsourced security testing\n- Continuous vulnerability discovery\n- Security researcher engagement\n- Demonstrating security commitment\n\nBug bounty programs incentivize external security researchers to find and report vulnerabilities by offering monetary rewards. Programs define scope (what systems are testable), rules of engagement, reward tiers based on severity, and safe harbor provisions protecting researchers. Platforms like HackerOne and Bugcrowd facilitate program management. Bug bounties complement internal security testing by leveraging diverse external expertise and providing continuous testing coverage.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-bug-bounty-programs", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595667Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595741Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595741Z"}
{"id": "trtp-fab976d842a9", "instruction": "How should vulnerability management integrate with patch management?", "output": "VM and patch management integration: Data Flow - VM to Patching: (1) VM identifies vulnerabilities requiring patches, (2) VM prioritizes by risk (not just CVSS), (3) VM provides remediation SLAs by severity, (4) VM creates tickets/tasks for patching team, (5) VM specifies which patches address which CVEs. Data Flow - Patching to VM: (6) Patching reports deployment status, (7) Patching confirms target systems patched, (8) Patching notes exceptions and failures, (9) VM receives status for tracking. Verification Loop: (10) VM rescans after patch window, (11) VM confirms vulnerabilities resolved, (12) VM identifies residual vulnerabilities, (13) Failed patches return to remediation queue. Tool Integration: Connect scanner to WSUS/SCCM/Intune, Bidirectional API integration preferred, Unified dashboard showing vulnerability to patch status, Automated ticket creation and closure. SLA Alignment: VM SLAs drive patching priorities, Patching capacity influences realistic SLAs, Joint metrics: MTTR from discovery to verified fix.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-patch-management-integration", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595750Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595759Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595759Z"}
{"id": "trtp-7455ba060952", "instruction": "What is the patch testing process before deployment?", "output": "Patch testing methodology: Test Environment: (1) Representative subset of production systems, (2) Same configurations, applications, dependencies, (3) Isolated from production network, (4) Ability to quickly provision and destroy. Testing Phases: Functional Testing: (5) Install patch on test systems, (6) Verify system boots and services start, (7) Test critical application functions, (8) Check integrations with other systems. Regression Testing: (9) Run automated test suites, (10) Verify no broken functionality, (11) Performance baseline comparison, (12) User acceptance testing for critical apps. Security Validation: (13) Verify vulnerability is actually fixed, (14) Scan patched system for the CVE, (15) Check for new vulnerabilities introduced, (16) Validate security controls still function. Timeline: Standard patches: 1-2 weeks testing, Critical/emergency: Hours to 1-2 days (risk-based decision), Rollback plan required before production deployment. Documentation: Test results recorded, Approval sign-off, Rollback procedures verified.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-patch-management-integration", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595750Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595766Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595766Z"}
{"id": "trtp-1460764c168b", "instruction": "How do you handle failed patch deployments?", "output": "Failed patch deployment handling: Detection: (1) Patch management tool reports deployment failure, (2) Post-patch vulnerability scan shows CVE still present, (3) System health check fails after patching, (4) User reports application issues. Root Cause Analysis: (5) Review deployment logs for errors, (6) Check prerequisites (disk space, dependencies, reboots), (7) Identify conflicting software, (8) Determine if failure is systemic or isolated. Resolution Approaches: Retry: Prerequisites met, transient failure, retry deployment. Workaround: Alternative patch or update path available. Manual intervention: Complex failure requiring hands-on fix. Compensating control: Can't patch, implement alternative protection. Exception: Documented risk acceptance with justification. Escalation Path: (9) Automated retry for transient failures, (10) Escalate to system team for persistent failures, (11) Engage vendor support for product issues, (12) Security team for risk assessment if extended delay. Tracking: Failed deployments tracked in VM system, Aging tracked against SLAs, Executive visibility for persistent failures, Metrics: patch success rate, failure reasons.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-patch-management-integration", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595750Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595773Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595773Z"}
{"id": "trtp-b8971b107ff8", "instruction": "Explain Patch Management Integration in vulnerability management.", "output": "Patch Management Integration: Vulnerability management and patch management are tightly coupled processes. VM identifies what needs to be patched and prioritizes based on risk. Patch management handles the operational deployment of patches. Effective integration requires VM to provide prioritized remediation lists to patching teams, and patching to report deployment status back to VM for tracking and verification. The gap between these functions is often where vulnerabilities persist.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Remediation workflow\n- SLA tracking\n- Coverage measurement\n- Compliance reporting", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-patch-management-integration", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595750Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595785Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595785Z"}
{"id": "trtp-be17331f4cda", "instruction": "What are best practices for Patch Management Integration?", "output": "Best practices for Patch Management Integration:\n\n1. Integrate VM and patch management tools\n2. Track patch deployment status in VM\n3. Verify remediation through rescanning\n4. Align SLAs between teams\n\nVulnerability management and patch management are tightly coupled processes. VM identifies what needs to be patched and prioritizes based on risk. Patch management handles the operational deployment of patches. Effective integration requires VM to provide prioritized remediation lists to patching teams, and patching to report deployment status back to VM for tracking and verification. The gap between these functions is often where vulnerabilities persist.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-patch-management-integration", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595750Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595798Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595798Z"}
{"id": "trtp-0a4f8076c3c9", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Patch Management Integration?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Patch Management Integration:\n\n- Disconnected tools create visibility gaps\n- Patching without VM prioritization wastes resources\n- Not verifying patches were effective\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Integrate VM and patch management tools\n- Track patch deployment status in VM\n- Verify remediation through rescanning", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-patch-management-integration", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595750Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595811Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595811Z"}
{"id": "trtp-3fa0211ba803", "instruction": "When should you use Patch Management Integration?", "output": "Use cases for Patch Management Integration:\n\n- Remediation workflow\n- SLA tracking\n- Coverage measurement\n- Compliance reporting\n\nVulnerability management and patch management are tightly coupled processes. VM identifies what needs to be patched and prioritizes based on risk. Patch management handles the operational deployment of patches. Effective integration requires VM to provide prioritized remediation lists to patching teams, and patching to report deployment status back to VM for tracking and verification. The gap between these functions is often where vulnerabilities persist.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-fundamentals-patch-management-integration", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595750Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595822Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595822Z"}
{"id": "trtp-d1eeb4acb4a2", "instruction": "What is a CVE and how is it assigned?", "output": "CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) explained: Format: CVE-YYYY-NNNNN (e.g., CVE-2021-44228). Year indicates when CVE was assigned, not when vulnerability was discovered. Number is sequential within that year. Assignment Process: (1) Vulnerability discovered by researcher, vendor, or security team. (2) Requester contacts CNA (CVE Numbering Authority) for assignment. (3) CNA evaluates if issue meets CVE criteria (security impact, affects multiple users). (4) CVE ID reserved - initially 'RESERVED' status with minimal details. (5) Details added after vendor patch or coordinated disclosure. (6) Published to CVE.org and NVD. CNAs include: Major vendors (Microsoft, Google, Apple, Red Hat), Security companies (Rapid7, Tenable), CERT/CC, and MITRE as primary CNA. Timeline: CVE can be reserved before public disclosure. NVD enrichment (CVSS score) may take days to weeks. Not all security issues get CVEs - must meet specific criteria.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cve-identifier-system", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595834Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595842Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595842Z"}
{"id": "trtp-3deb05b27726", "instruction": "What is the relationship between CVE and CWE?", "output": "CVE vs CWE relationship: CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures): Specific instance of a vulnerability, unique identifier (CVE-2021-44228), describes one flaw in one product, example: Log4Shell in Apache Log4j. CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration): Category or type of weakness, classification system (CWE-502), describes pattern that leads to vulnerabilities, example: Deserialization of Untrusted Data. Relationship: CVEs are mapped to CWEs. One CVE has one or more associated CWEs. One CWE encompasses many CVEs. Example: CVE-2021-44228 (Log4Shell) maps to CWE-502 (Deserialization) and CWE-917 (Expression Language Injection). Use in VM: CVE: Track specific vulnerabilities to patch. CWE: Identify systematic weakness patterns. If many CVEs map to same CWE, indicates recurring development issue. CWE helps with secure coding training and root cause analysis. CWE Top 25 highlights most dangerous weakness types.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cve-identifier-system", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595834Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595850Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595850Z"}
{"id": "trtp-bad3afbb3c35", "instruction": "How do you use the National Vulnerability Database (NVD)?", "output": "National Vulnerability Database (NVD) usage: What NVD Provides: (1) CVE enrichment with CVSS scores, (2) CPE (Common Platform Enumeration) for affected products, (3) Reference links to advisories and patches, (4) CWE classification, (5) Searchable database and APIs. Accessing NVD: Web interface: nvd.nist.gov for manual searches. NVD API: Programmatic access for integration (api.nvd.nist.gov). Data feeds: JSON/XML exports for bulk import. Search Capabilities: Search by CVE ID, keyword, product name. Filter by CVSS score range, date range. Filter by vendor, product version. API Use Cases: Integrate NVD data into VM tools, automate CVE lookups, enrich internal vulnerability data, build custom dashboards. Limitations: NVD analysis can lag CVE publication (days to weeks). Initial CVE may lack CVSS score. CPE matching requires exact product identification. Some CVEs have incomplete or inaccurate data. Best Practice: Use NVD as enrichment source, not sole source. Cross-reference with vendor advisories for accuracy.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cve-identifier-system", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595834Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595857Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595857Z"}
{"id": "trtp-97f5b6586bb4", "instruction": "Describe CVE Identifier System for vulnerability management.", "output": "CVE Identifier System: Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) is a standardized system for identifying and naming cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Each CVE has a unique identifier in the format CVE-YYYY-NNNNN (year and sequential number). CVEs are assigned by CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs) which include vendors, researchers, and coordination centers. The CVE system enables consistent reference to specific vulnerabilities across different tools, databases, and organizations.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Vulnerability identification\n- Cross-tool correlation\n- Vendor communication\n- Threat intelligence", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cve-identifier-system", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595834Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595869Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595869Z"}
{"id": "trtp-c79a01d81a40", "instruction": "What are the recommended approaches for CVE Identifier System?", "output": "Best practices for CVE Identifier System:\n\n1. Reference CVE IDs in all vulnerability discussions\n2. Verify CVE details from authoritative sources\n3. Track CVE status changes\n4. Map CVEs to internal vulnerability data\n\nCommon Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) is a standardized system for identifying and naming cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Each CVE has a unique identifier in the format CVE-YYYY-NNNNN (year and sequential number). CVEs are assigned by CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs) which include vendors, researchers, and coordination centers. The CVE system enables consistent reference to specific vulnerabilities across different tools, databases, and organizations.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cve-identifier-system", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595834Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595882Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595882Z"}
{"id": "trtp-8c61c10902f8", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with CVE Identifier System?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with CVE Identifier System:\n\n- CVE assignment can lag discovery\n- Some vulnerabilities never get CVEs\n- Duplicate CVEs occasionally occur\n- CVE details may be incomplete initially\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Reference CVE IDs in all vulnerability discussions\n- Verify CVE details from authoritative sources\n- Track CVE status changes", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cve-identifier-system", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595834Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595894Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595894Z"}
{"id": "trtp-120adf40cc88", "instruction": "When should you use CVE Identifier System?", "output": "Use cases for CVE Identifier System:\n\n- Vulnerability identification\n- Cross-tool correlation\n- Vendor communication\n- Threat intelligence\n\nCommon Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) is a standardized system for identifying and naming cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Each CVE has a unique identifier in the format CVE-YYYY-NNNNN (year and sequential number). CVEs are assigned by CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs) which include vendors, researchers, and coordination centers. The CVE system enables consistent reference to specific vulnerabilities across different tools, databases, and organizations.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cve-identifier-system", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595834Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595905Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595905Z"}
{"id": "trtp-e531566d094a", "instruction": "What are the CVSS v3.1 base metrics?", "output": "CVSS v3.1 base metrics (8 total): Exploitability Metrics: (1) Attack Vector (AV): How the attacker reaches the vulnerable component. Values: Network (N), Adjacent (A), Local (L), Physical (P). (2) Attack Complexity (AC): Conditions beyond attacker control needed for exploit. Values: Low (L), High (H). (3) Privileges Required (PR): Level of privileges needed before exploiting. Values: None (N), Low (L), High (H). (4) User Interaction (UI): Whether a user must take action. Values: None (N), Required (R). (5) Scope (S): Whether vulnerability impacts resources beyond its security scope. Values: Unchanged (U), Changed (C). Impact Metrics: (6) Confidentiality (C): Impact on information confidentiality. Values: None (N), Low (L), High (H). (7) Integrity (I): Impact on information integrity. Values: None (N), Low (L), High (H). (8) Availability (A): Impact on system availability. Values: None (N), Low (L), High (H). Calculation: These metrics combine via formula to produce 0.0-10.0 score and severity rating.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-base-metrics-overview", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595914Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595923Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595923Z"}
{"id": "trtp-23f5a8ba72f7", "instruction": "How is CVSS Attack Vector (AV) determined?", "output": "CVSS Attack Vector (AV) metric: Purpose: Reflects how 'remote' an attacker can be to exploit the vulnerability. More remote = higher score. Values and Scores: Network (N) - Score: 0.85: Exploitable from anywhere on the network (internet). No physical or logical network proximity needed. Example: Web application RCE, email-based exploit. Adjacent (A) - Score: 0.62: Requires same physical or logical network segment. Examples: Same WiFi network, same broadcast domain, Bluetooth range. Example: ARP spoofing, local network service exploit. Local (L) - Score: 0.55: Requires local system access. Attacker must have shell access, or trick user into running malicious code. Example: Privilege escalation, local file inclusion. Physical (P) - Score: 0.20: Requires physical access to the device. Example: USB-based attack, hardware manipulation. Prioritization Impact: AV:N on internet-facing systems = highest priority. AV:L on servers without user logins = lower risk. AV:P generally lowest priority unless targeting specific high-value devices.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-base-metrics-overview", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595914Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595930Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595930Z"}
{"id": "trtp-8056284229b5", "instruction": "What does CVSS Scope (S) measure?", "output": "CVSS Scope (S) metric: Purpose: Determines whether a vulnerability in one component can impact resources beyond its security scope/authority. Values: Unchanged (U): Exploited component and impacted component are the same, or within same security authority. Impact limited to vulnerable component's resources. Example: SQL injection affecting only the web application's database. Changed (C): Vulnerability in one component impacts resources beyond its security scope. Impact extends beyond what the vulnerable component controls. Example: VM escape affects host system, container breakout reaches host, XSS in one origin affects another. Score Impact: Scope Changed significantly increases the CVSS score. Also affects how Privileges Required (PR) metric is scored. Why Important: Scope Changed indicates boundary-crossing vulnerabilities. VM escapes, container breakouts, sandbox escapes are especially dangerous. These vulnerabilities often warrant emergency response. Prioritization: S:C (Changed) vulnerabilities breaking security boundaries should be prioritized even if other metrics seem moderate. Breaking VM/container isolation is almost always critical.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-base-metrics-overview", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595914Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595937Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595937Z"}
{"id": "trtp-183987e0e9ea", "instruction": "How do CVSS Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability impacts work?", "output": "CVSS CIA Impact metrics: Confidentiality (C): None (N): No confidentiality impact. Low (L): Some restricted information accessible. Attacker gains access to some data, but scope or sensitivity limited. High (H): Total confidentiality loss. All data within the impacted component accessible to attacker. Integrity (I): None (N): No integrity impact. Low (L): Some data can be modified. Modifications possible but limited in scope or attacker control. High (H): Total integrity loss. Attacker can modify any data within impacted component. Availability (A): None (N): No availability impact. Low (L): Reduced performance or partial service disruption. High (H): Total availability loss. Complete denial of service, system crash. Common Patterns: RCE (Remote Code Execution): Usually C:H/I:H/A:H - attacker has full control. SQL Injection (data extraction): C:H/I:N/A:N or C:H/I:H/A:N depending on capabilities. DoS only: C:N/I:N/A:H. Information disclosure: C:L or C:H with I:N/A:N. Each combination produces different base scores. Impact metrics are weighted in CVSS formula.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-base-metrics-overview", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595914Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595944Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595944Z"}
{"id": "trtp-9ec8f78cd0fe", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about CVSS Base Metrics Overview?", "output": "CVSS Base Metrics Overview: The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) provides a standardized method for rating vulnerability severity. CVSS v3.1 base metrics assess intrinsic vulnerability characteristics that don't change over time. The eight base metrics are: Attack Vector (AV), Attack Complexity (AC), Privileges Required (PR), User Interaction (UI), Scope (S), Confidentiality Impact (C), Integrity Impact (I), and Availability Impact (A). These combine mathematically to produce a score from 0.0 to 10.0.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Severity standardization\n- Prioritization input\n- Vendor communication\n- Compliance reporting", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-base-metrics-overview", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595914Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595963Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595963Z"}
{"id": "trtp-0a31197eaa5c", "instruction": "What are best practices for CVSS Base Metrics Overview?", "output": "Best practices for CVSS Base Metrics Overview:\n\n1. Understand what each metric means\n2. Don't rely solely on CVSS for prioritization\n3. Apply environmental metrics for context\n4. Know the version being used (v3.1 vs v4.0)\n\nThe Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) provides a standardized method for rating vulnerability severity. CVSS v3.1 base metrics assess intrinsic vulnerability characteristics that don't change over time. The eight base metrics are: Attack Vector (AV), Attack Complexity (AC), Privileges Required (PR), User Interaction (UI), Scope (S), Confidentiality Impact (C), Integrity Impact (I), and Availability Impact (A). These combine mathematically to produce a score from 0.0 to 10.0.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-base-metrics-overview", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595914Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595976Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595976Z"}
{"id": "trtp-6a8499228bb6", "instruction": "What goes wrong with CVSS Base Metrics Overview?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with CVSS Base Metrics Overview:\n\n- CVSS doesn't indicate exploit availability\n- Same CVSS score can mean very different risks\n- Scores without context are misleading\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Understand what each metric means\n- Don't rely solely on CVSS for prioritization\n- Apply environmental metrics for context", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-base-metrics-overview", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595914Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595988Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595988Z"}
{"id": "trtp-233bb1c3bf10", "instruction": "What scenarios require CVSS Base Metrics Overview?", "output": "Use cases for CVSS Base Metrics Overview:\n\n- Severity standardization\n- Prioritization input\n- Vendor communication\n- Compliance reporting\n\nThe Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) provides a standardized method for rating vulnerability severity. CVSS v3.1 base metrics assess intrinsic vulnerability characteristics that don't change over time. The eight base metrics are: Attack Vector (AV), Attack Complexity (AC), Privileges Required (PR), User Interaction (UI), Scope (S), Confidentiality Impact (C), Integrity Impact (I), and Availability Impact (A). These combine mathematically to produce a score from 0.0 to 10.0.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-base-metrics-overview", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595914Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595999Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.595999Z"}
{"id": "trtp-7ad2a5862f47", "instruction": "What are the CVSS severity ratings and what do they mean?", "output": "CVSS v3.1 Severity Ratings: None (0.0): Informational or no security impact. Rare in practice for assigned CVEs. Low (0.1-3.9): Limited impact, difficult to exploit. Example: Minor information disclosure requiring local access. Typical SLA: 90-180 days. Medium (4.0-6.9): Moderate impact, some exploitation barriers. Example: XSS requiring user interaction. Typical SLA: 30-90 days. High (7.0-8.9): Serious impact, fewer exploitation barriers. Example: Authenticated RCE, significant data exposure. Typical SLA: 7-30 days. Critical (9.0-10.0): Maximum impact, easily exploitable. Example: Unauthenticated network RCE. Typical SLA: 24-72 hours. Important Context: CVSS 9.8 with no known exploit may be lower risk than CVSS 7.5 being actively exploited. Rating doesn't consider: exploit availability, asset criticality, network exposure. Use ratings as starting point, not final prioritization.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-severity-ratings", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596008Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596017Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596017Z"}
{"id": "trtp-2fa62991be14", "instruction": "How should CVSS scores influence remediation SLAs?", "output": "CVSS-based SLA guidance: Typical SLA Framework: Critical (9.0-10.0): 24-72 hours for internet-facing, 7 days for internal. High (7.0-8.9): 7-14 days for internet-facing, 30 days for internal. Medium (4.0-6.9): 30-60 days. Low (0.1-3.9): 90-180 days or risk acceptance. Modifiers to Consider: Internet-facing: Tighten SLAs significantly. Active exploitation (KEV): Immediate action regardless of CVSS. Crown jewel assets: Tighten SLAs by one tier. Compensating controls in place: May allow extended timeline. No known exploit and low EPSS: May allow extended timeline. Example Adjusted SLAs: CVSS 9.8, internet-facing, in KEV: 24 hours. CVSS 9.8, internal only, no exploit: 7 days. CVSS 7.0, internet-facing, actively exploited: 48 hours. CVSS 5.5, internal, compensating controls: 90 days. Key Principle: CVSS provides baseline, risk context adjusts. Define exceptions process for SLA extensions. Track SLA compliance as program metric.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-severity-ratings", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596008Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596031Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596031Z"}
{"id": "trtp-58cfb3787795", "instruction": "What is CVSS Severity Ratings?", "output": "CVSS Severity Ratings: CVSS scores map to qualitative severity ratings: None (0.0), Low (0.1-3.9), Medium (4.0-6.9), High (7.0-8.9), and Critical (9.0-10.0). These ratings provide quick categorization for communication and SLA assignment. However, severity ratings alone don't indicate risk - context matters. A Critical vulnerability on an isolated test system may be lower actual risk than a High vulnerability on an internet-facing production server with sensitive data.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Quick categorization\n- SLA assignment\n- Executive reporting\n- Compliance thresholds", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-severity-ratings", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596008Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596047Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596047Z"}
{"id": "trtp-2b3e9a8b0a7c", "instruction": "What are best practices for CVSS Severity Ratings?", "output": "Best practices for CVSS Severity Ratings:\n\n1. Use ratings for initial categorization\n2. Don't stop at CVSS rating for prioritization\n3. Consider environmental factors\n4. Define organizational SLAs by rating\n\nCVSS scores map to qualitative severity ratings: None (0.0), Low (0.1-3.9), Medium (4.0-6.9), High (7.0-8.9), and Critical (9.0-10.0). These ratings provide quick categorization for communication and SLA assignment. However, severity ratings alone don't indicate risk - context matters. A Critical vulnerability on an isolated test system may be lower actual risk than a High vulnerability on an internet-facing production server with sensitive data.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-severity-ratings", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596008Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596060Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596060Z"}
{"id": "trtp-8a9451af3d35", "instruction": "What goes wrong with CVSS Severity Ratings?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with CVSS Severity Ratings:\n\n- Critical doesn't always mean most urgent\n- Medium vulnerabilities can be critical on key assets\n- Ratings ignore exploit availability and asset context\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Use ratings for initial categorization\n- Don't stop at CVSS rating for prioritization\n- Consider environmental factors", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-severity-ratings", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596008Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596073Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596073Z"}
{"id": "trtp-68038db55608", "instruction": "What are the use cases for CVSS Severity Ratings?", "output": "Use cases for CVSS Severity Ratings:\n\n- Quick categorization\n- SLA assignment\n- Executive reporting\n- Compliance thresholds\n\nCVSS scores map to qualitative severity ratings: None (0.0), Low (0.1-3.9), Medium (4.0-6.9), High (7.0-8.9), and Critical (9.0-10.0). These ratings provide quick categorization for communication and SLA assignment. However, severity ratings alone don't indicate risk - context matters. A Critical vulnerability on an isolated test system may be lower actual risk than a High vulnerability on an internet-facing production server with sensitive data.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-severity-ratings", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596008Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596084Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596084Z"}
{"id": "trtp-d62758f233dc", "instruction": "What is EPSS and how is it calculated?", "output": "EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) explained: Purpose: Predicts probability a CVE will be exploited in the wild within next 30 days. Output: Score from 0 to 1 (0% to 100% probability). Percentile ranking for comparison. Model Inputs: CVE characteristics (age, CVSS metrics, CWE). Exploit database presence (Metasploit, ExploitDB). Social media and dark web mentions. Historical exploitation patterns. Vendor and product information. How to Use: Low EPSS (<5%): Lower priority, less likely to be exploited soon. Medium EPSS (5-30%): Moderate concern, monitor for changes. High EPSS (>30%): Prioritize remediation, high exploitation likelihood. Comparison: CVSS 9.8 with EPSS 0.5% = severe if exploited, but unlikely. CVSS 7.0 with EPSS 60% = being actively targeted, prioritize. Access: EPSS scores available at first.org/epss. API available for integration. Daily updates as threat landscape changes.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-epss---exploit-prediction-scoring-system", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596093Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596102Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596102Z"}
{"id": "trtp-332fda81cb3c", "instruction": "How do you combine CVSS and EPSS for prioritization?", "output": "CVSS + EPSS prioritization framework: Matrix Approach: High CVSS (7+) + High EPSS (>10%): Immediate priority - severe and likely exploited. High CVSS + Low EPSS (<2%): Important but not urgent - severe but unlikely. Low CVSS (<7) + High EPSS: Elevated priority - attackers targeting despite lower severity. Low CVSS + Low EPSS: Standard priority - lower risk all around. Scoring Formula Example: Priority Score = CVSS * (1 + EPSS * 10). Weights EPSS to elevate likely-exploited vulnerabilities. CVSS 9.0 with EPSS 0.01: 9.0 * 1.1 = 9.9. CVSS 9.0 with EPSS 0.50: 9.0 * 6.0 = 54.0 (much higher priority). CVSS 6.0 with EPSS 0.50: 6.0 * 6.0 = 36.0 (higher than low-EPSS Critical). Additional Factors: Add multipliers for: Internet-facing, KEV status, asset criticality. Subtract for: compensating controls, limited exposure. Practical Guidance: EPSS >10% with any CVSS 7+ = prioritize immediately. EPSS <1% with no exploit = can be deprioritized unless on critical assets. Monitor EPSS changes - scores increase as exploits emerge.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-epss---exploit-prediction-scoring-system", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596093Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596109Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596109Z"}
{"id": "trtp-4cbfffbd1f6f", "instruction": "What are the limitations of EPSS?", "output": "EPSS limitations to understand: Prediction Uncertainty: EPSS is probabilistic, not deterministic. Low EPSS doesn't mean 'won't be exploited'. High EPSS doesn't guarantee exploitation. Model may miss emerging threats. Data Limitations: Based on historical exploitation patterns. New vulnerability types may be poorly predicted. Targeted/APT attacks not well represented. Zero-days have no EPSS until CVE assigned. Coverage Gaps: Only covers vulnerabilities with CVEs. Doesn't predict exploitation against specific organizations. Model trained on general threat landscape, not industry-specific. Update Lag: Daily updates may miss rapid exploit development. Initial scores for new CVEs may be less accurate. Model retraining occurs periodically, not continuously. Best Use: Use as one input among many (CVSS, KEV, asset criticality). High EPSS = strong signal to prioritize. Low EPSS \u2260 safe to ignore (especially on critical assets). Combine with threat intelligence for targeted threat awareness. Monitor trends, not just single-point scores.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-epss---exploit-prediction-scoring-system", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596093Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596116Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596116Z"}
{"id": "trtp-a51cf5bdb566", "instruction": "Describe EPSS - Exploit Prediction Scoring System for vulnerability management.", "output": "EPSS - Exploit Prediction Scoring System: The Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS) is a data-driven model that estimates the probability a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. EPSS uses machine learning trained on historical exploitation data, vulnerability characteristics, and threat intelligence. Scores range from 0 to 1 (0% to 100% probability). EPSS complements CVSS by adding exploitability likelihood - a Critical CVSS vulnerability with 0.1% EPSS may be lower priority than a High CVSS vulnerability with 50% EPSS.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Prioritization refinement\n- Resource allocation\n- Risk-based VM\n- Exploitability assessment", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-epss---exploit-prediction-scoring-system", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596093Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596132Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596132Z"}
{"id": "trtp-bd0b13490198", "instruction": "What are best practices for EPSS - Exploit Prediction Scoring System?", "output": "Best practices for EPSS - Exploit Prediction Scoring System:\n\n1. Use EPSS alongside CVSS, not instead of\n2. Focus on high EPSS percentile vulnerabilities\n3. Monitor EPSS score changes over time\n4. Combine with KEV for comprehensive exploitability view\n\nThe Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS) is a data-driven model that estimates the probability a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. EPSS uses machine learning trained on historical exploitation data, vulnerability characteristics, and threat intelligence. Scores range from 0 to 1 (0% to 100% probability). EPSS complements CVSS by adding exploitability likelihood - a Critical CVSS vulnerability with 0.1% EPSS may be lower priority than a High CVSS vulnerability with 50% EPSS.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-epss---exploit-prediction-scoring-system", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596093Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596145Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596145Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ea4980123abd", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with EPSS - Exploit Prediction Scoring System?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with EPSS - Exploit Prediction Scoring System:\n\n- EPSS is probabilistic, not deterministic\n- New vulnerabilities may have inaccurate initial EPSS\n- Doesn't account for targeted attacks against specific organizations\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Use EPSS alongside CVSS, not instead of\n- Focus on high EPSS percentile vulnerabilities\n- Monitor EPSS score changes over time", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-epss---exploit-prediction-scoring-system", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596093Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596157Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596157Z"}
{"id": "trtp-a51e5fcddc4c", "instruction": "What scenarios require EPSS - Exploit Prediction Scoring System?", "output": "Use cases for EPSS - Exploit Prediction Scoring System:\n\n- Prioritization refinement\n- Resource allocation\n- Risk-based VM\n- Exploitability assessment\n\nThe Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS) is a data-driven model that estimates the probability a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. EPSS uses machine learning trained on historical exploitation data, vulnerability characteristics, and threat intelligence. Scores range from 0 to 1 (0% to 100% probability). EPSS complements CVSS by adding exploitability likelihood - a Critical CVSS vulnerability with 0.1% EPSS may be lower priority than a High CVSS vulnerability with 50% EPSS.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-epss---exploit-prediction-scoring-system", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596093Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596173Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596173Z"}
{"id": "trtp-153d7f255f8d", "instruction": "What is the CISA KEV catalog and how should it be used?", "output": "CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog: What It Is: List of CVEs with confirmed active exploitation. Maintained by CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency). Evidence-based - each entry has documented exploitation. Currently contains 1000+ vulnerabilities. Inclusion Criteria: (1) Assigned CVE ID, (2) Evidence of active exploitation in the wild, (3) Clear remediation action available (patch or mitigation). How to Use: Immediate Priority: KEV vulnerabilities should jump to top of remediation queue. High-Confidence Signal: These aren't theoretical - attackers are actively using them. Federal Requirement: BOD 22-01 mandates federal agencies remediate KEVs. Private Sector: Strong recommendation to treat as priority. Access: cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog. JSON feed available for automation. Integration: Add KEV check to vulnerability prioritization workflow. Auto-escalate KEV matches. Alert on new KEV additions matching your inventory. Limitation: Not comprehensive - many exploited vulnerabilities not yet in KEV. Use alongside EPSS for broader exploitation likelihood view.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cisa-known-exploited-vulnerabilities-kev", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596182Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596192Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596192Z"}
{"id": "trtp-13030783215b", "instruction": "What is SSVC and how does it differ from CVSS?", "output": "SSVC (Stakeholder-Specific Vulnerability Categorization): Purpose: Decision-focused framework for vulnerability prioritization. Developed by CERT/CC and CISA. Produces actionable decisions, not just scores. Key Differences from CVSS: CVSS: Produces numeric score (0-10). SSVC: Produces decision outcome (Track, Track*, Attend, Act). CVSS: One-size-fits-all severity. SSVC: Different decision trees for different stakeholders. CVSS: Static technical assessment. SSVC: Incorporates exploitation status and mission impact. SSVC Decision Points: Exploitation: None, PoC, Active. Automatable: Can exploitation be automated? No/Yes. Technical Impact: Partial, Total. Mission Prevalence: Minimal, Support, Essential. Decision Outcomes: Track: Monitor, remediate in standard cycle. Track*: Closer monitoring, faster remediation. Attend: Elevated priority, supervisor attention. Act: Immediate action, executive visibility. Adoption: CISA uses SSVC for federal vulnerability prioritization. Complements rather than replaces CVSS. Good for organizations wanting prescriptive guidance.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cisa-known-exploited-vulnerabilities-kev", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596182Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596199Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596199Z"}
{"id": "trtp-d1146ef7ba74", "instruction": "Explain CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) in vulnerability management.", "output": "CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV): The CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog lists CVEs with confirmed active exploitation in the wild. Inclusion requires: assigned CVE, evidence of active exploitation, and available remediation (patch or mitigation). For US federal agencies, BOD 22-01 mandates remediation of KEV vulnerabilities within specified timelines (typically 14-21 days). KEV provides high-confidence exploitability signal - these vulnerabilities are not theoretical, attackers are using them now.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Exploitation confirmation\n- Federal compliance\n- Emergency prioritization\n- Threat intelligence", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cisa-known-exploited-vulnerabilities-kev", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596182Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596215Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596215Z"}
{"id": "trtp-044b9e340b8c", "instruction": "What are the recommended approaches for CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV)?", "output": "Best practices for CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV):\n\n1. Monitor KEV feed for new additions\n2. Prioritize KEV vulnerabilities immediately\n3. Use KEV as high-confidence exploitability indicator\n4. Integrate KEV into automated prioritization\n\nThe CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog lists CVEs with confirmed active exploitation in the wild. Inclusion requires: assigned CVE, evidence of active exploitation, and available remediation (patch or mitigation). For US federal agencies, BOD 22-01 mandates remediation of KEV vulnerabilities within specified timelines (typically 14-21 days). KEV provides high-confidence exploitability signal - these vulnerabilities are not theoretical, attackers are using them now.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cisa-known-exploited-vulnerabilities-kev", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596182Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596227Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596227Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f3a7eeddce16", "instruction": "What goes wrong with CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV)?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV):\n\n- KEV is not comprehensive - many exploited vulns not listed\n- Lag between exploitation and KEV addition\n- Not all KEV vulns apply to your environment\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Monitor KEV feed for new additions\n- Prioritize KEV vulnerabilities immediately\n- Use KEV as high-confidence exploitability indicator", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cisa-known-exploited-vulnerabilities-kev", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596182Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596246Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596246Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ec66af628d15", "instruction": "What are the use cases for CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV)?", "output": "Use cases for CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV):\n\n- Exploitation confirmation\n- Federal compliance\n- Emergency prioritization\n- Threat intelligence\n\nThe CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog lists CVEs with confirmed active exploitation in the wild. Inclusion requires: assigned CVE, evidence of active exploitation, and available remediation (patch or mitigation). For US federal agencies, BOD 22-01 mandates remediation of KEV vulnerabilities within specified timelines (typically 14-21 days). KEV provides high-confidence exploitability signal - these vulnerabilities are not theoretical, attackers are using them now.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cisa-known-exploited-vulnerabilities-kev", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596182Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596258Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596258Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f6d883f1976b", "instruction": "What are the major changes in CVSS v4.0?", "output": "CVSS v4.0 major changes from v3.1: New/Changed Metrics: Attack Requirements (AT): New metric capturing conditions beyond AC. Replaces some nuance lost in AC simplification. Scope Removed: Replaced by explicit Vulnerable System and Subsequent System impact metrics. Clearer distinction of impact boundaries. Metric Group Restructuring: Base Metrics: Core exploitability and impact. Threat Metrics (renamed from Temporal): Exploit Maturity now key factor. Environmental Metrics: Organizational context. Supplemental Metrics (new): Additional context without affecting score. New Supplemental Metrics: Safety, Automatable, Recovery, Value Density, Vulnerability Response Effort, Provider Urgency. Provide context without inflating scores. Scoring Nomenclature: CVSS-B: Base score only. CVSS-BT: Base + Threat. CVSS-BE: Base + Environmental. CVSS-BTE: All applicable metrics. Adoption Timeline: Released November 2023. NVD transition ongoing. Tool vendors adding support gradually. Organizations should plan transition but v3.1 remains valid.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-v4.0-changes", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596267Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596275Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596275Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f6f2cb7d8e86", "instruction": "How does CVSS v4.0 handle exploit maturity?", "output": "CVSS v4.0 Exploit Maturity handling: Metric Group: Part of Threat Metrics (renamed from Temporal in v3.1). Captures current state of exploit development and availability. Metric Values: Not Defined (X): Default, no information available. Attacked (A): Evidence of exploitation in the wild (strongest signal). POC (P): Proof-of-concept code exists publicly. Unreported (U): No public exploit code or exploitation reports. Scoring Impact: Unlike v3.1 where temporal was often ignored, v4.0 encourages threat metric use. Attacked (A) significantly increases severity assessment. Combination with EPSS: CVSS-BT (Base + Threat) score incorporates exploitation status. Pair with EPSS for probability AND current exploitation evidence. Best Practice: Use CVSS-BT scores when exploitation data available. Attacked status should trigger immediate response. Monitor for status changes as exploits emerge. Integration with threat intelligence feeds for accuracy.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-v4.0-changes", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596267Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596283Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596283Z"}
{"id": "trtp-c4ecc3b4efc6", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about CVSS v4.0 Changes?", "output": "CVSS v4.0 Changes: CVSS v4.0 was released in 2023 with significant changes from v3.1. Key additions include: new Attack Requirements (AT) metric, restructured metric groups (Base, Threat, Environmental, Supplemental), removal of Scope metric replaced by Vulnerable/Subsequent system impact, and new supplemental metrics for additional context. V4.0 aims to provide more granular and accurate severity assessment while maintaining backward compatibility concepts.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Updated severity assessment\n- More granular scoring\n- Better temporal factors\n- Supplemental context", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-v4.0-changes", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596267Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596295Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596295Z"}
{"id": "trtp-853f348855ab", "instruction": "What are the recommended approaches for CVSS v4.0 Changes?", "output": "Best practices for CVSS v4.0 Changes:\n\n1. Understand v4.0 changes before adoption\n2. Plan transition timeline from v3.1\n3. Update tools and processes for v4.0\n4. Use supplemental metrics for context\n\nCVSS v4.0 was released in 2023 with significant changes from v3.1. Key additions include: new Attack Requirements (AT) metric, restructured metric groups (Base, Threat, Environmental, Supplemental), removal of Scope metric replaced by Vulnerable/Subsequent system impact, and new supplemental metrics for additional context. V4.0 aims to provide more granular and accurate severity assessment while maintaining backward compatibility concepts.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-v4.0-changes", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596267Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596312Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596312Z"}
{"id": "trtp-070d5c97342f", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with CVSS v4.0 Changes?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with CVSS v4.0 Changes:\n\n- Adoption will be gradual - v3.1 still dominant\n- Score comparisons between versions are problematic\n- Tool support varies\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Understand v4.0 changes before adoption\n- Plan transition timeline from v3.1\n- Update tools and processes for v4.0", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-v4.0-changes", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596267Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596324Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596324Z"}
{"id": "trtp-e236ccdfb1e3", "instruction": "What scenarios require CVSS v4.0 Changes?", "output": "Use cases for CVSS v4.0 Changes:\n\n- Updated severity assessment\n- More granular scoring\n- Better temporal factors\n- Supplemental context\n\nCVSS v4.0 was released in 2023 with significant changes from v3.1. Key additions include: new Attack Requirements (AT) metric, restructured metric groups (Base, Threat, Environmental, Supplemental), removal of Scope metric replaced by Vulnerable/Subsequent system impact, and new supplemental metrics for additional context. V4.0 aims to provide more granular and accurate severity assessment while maintaining backward compatibility concepts.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scoring-cvss-v4.0-changes", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596267Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596335Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596335Z"}
{"id": "trtp-a982438ae0ab", "instruction": "What are the main categories of vulnerability scanners and their differences?", "output": "Vulnerability scanners fall into four main categories: network scanners that probe hosts remotely via network protocols, authenticated scanners that use credentials for deeper system inspection, agent-based scanners that deploy persistent software on endpoints for continuous monitoring, and web application scanners (DAST) that test HTTP-based applications. Network scans provide broad coverage but limited depth, authenticated scans reveal patch status and configurations, agents enable real-time detection in dynamic environments, and web scanners find application-layer flaws invisible to network tools.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-vulnerability-scanner-categories", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596346Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596355Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596355Z"}
{"id": "trtp-6c962deb0490", "instruction": "Why are authenticated vulnerability scans more accurate than unauthenticated scans?", "output": "Authenticated scans use valid credentials to log into target systems, enabling the scanner to query installed software versions, examine configurations, check registry entries, read file permissions, and verify patch levels directly. Unauthenticated scans can only probe network services externally, relying on banner grabbing and protocol responses that may be misleading or hidden. Authenticated scans typically find 10-50x more vulnerabilities because they see the complete system state rather than just exposed network surfaces.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-vulnerability-scanner-categories", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596346Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596363Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596363Z"}
{"id": "trtp-6393206636fa", "instruction": "What advantages do agent-based vulnerability scanners provide over network-based scanners?", "output": "Agent-based scanners deploy lightweight software on endpoints that continuously monitors for vulnerabilities without requiring network connectivity to a central scanner. Benefits include: scanning assets behind firewalls or NAT, detecting vulnerabilities on mobile/remote devices, providing real-time detection as changes occur, reducing network bandwidth from scan traffic, and maintaining visibility in dynamic cloud environments where IP addresses change frequently. Agents also enable scanning of containers and serverless workloads invisible to network scanners.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-vulnerability-scanner-categories", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596346Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596370Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596370Z"}
{"id": "trtp-e90c96939372", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Vulnerability Scanner Categories?", "output": "Vulnerability Scanner Categories: Vulnerability scanners are categorized by their approach: network scanners examine hosts remotely via network probes, authenticated scanners use credentials for deeper inspection, agent-based scanners deploy software on endpoints for continuous monitoring, and web application scanners test HTTP-based applications for security flaws.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Network scanners for perimeter assessment\n- Authenticated scans for patch verification\n- Agent-based scanning for cloud workloads\n- DAST scanners for web application testing", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-vulnerability-scanner-categories", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596346Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596386Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596386Z"}
{"id": "trtp-67f49289a65a", "instruction": "What are best practices for Vulnerability Scanner Categories?", "output": "Best practices for Vulnerability Scanner Categories:\n\n1. Combine multiple scanner types for coverage\n2. Use authenticated scans when possible\n3. Deploy agents on critical assets\n4. Schedule scans during maintenance windows\n\nVulnerability scanners are categorized by their approach: network scanners examine hosts remotely via network probes, authenticated scanners use credentials for deeper inspection, agent-based scanners deploy software on endpoints for continuous monitoring, and web application scanners test HTTP-based applications for security flaws.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-vulnerability-scanner-categories", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596346Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596399Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596399Z"}
{"id": "trtp-d4c3eab5c76d", "instruction": "What goes wrong with Vulnerability Scanner Categories?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Vulnerability Scanner Categories:\n\n- Relying solely on unauthenticated scans\n- Missing web application vulnerabilities\n- Agent deployment gaps in dynamic environments\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Combine multiple scanner types for coverage\n- Use authenticated scans when possible\n- Deploy agents on critical assets", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-vulnerability-scanner-categories", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596346Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596412Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596412Z"}
{"id": "trtp-22ff371e6f66", "instruction": "What are the use cases for Vulnerability Scanner Categories?", "output": "Use cases for Vulnerability Scanner Categories:\n\n- Network scanners for perimeter assessment\n- Authenticated scans for patch verification\n- Agent-based scanning for cloud workloads\n- DAST scanners for web application testing\n\nVulnerability scanners are categorized by their approach: network scanners examine hosts remotely via network probes, authenticated scanners use credentials for deeper inspection, agent-based scanners deploy software on endpoints for continuous monitoring, and web application scanners test HTTP-based applications for security flaws.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-vulnerability-scanner-categories", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596346Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596423Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596423Z"}
{"id": "trtp-91f28d561699", "instruction": "How does Nessus detect vulnerabilities and what is its plugin architecture?", "output": "Nessus uses a plugin-based architecture where each plugin is a small program designed to detect a specific vulnerability, misconfiguration, or compliance issue. Plugins are written in NASL (Nessus Attack Scripting Language) and updated daily by Tenable's research team. During scans, Nessus executes relevant plugins against targets based on discovered services and operating systems. Plugins may perform banner checks, version comparisons, protocol tests, or credential-based queries. This architecture allows rapid updates for new vulnerabilities without core scanner changes.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-nessus-vulnerability-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596432Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596440Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596440Z"}
{"id": "trtp-274690e6d49e", "instruction": "What scan policies and configurations optimize Nessus for different use cases?", "output": "Nessus scan policies should be tailored to specific use cases: for vulnerability assessment, enable comprehensive plugins but disable dangerous checks; for compliance audits, use built-in templates for PCI-DSS, CIS benchmarks, or HIPAA; for web applications, enable CGI and web app plugins with appropriate crawl depth; for production systems, configure safe checks and limit scan intensity to prevent service disruption. Key settings include port scan range, credential types (SSH, WMI, SNMP), performance throttling, and plugin family selection. Creating asset-specific policies improves accuracy and reduces scan time.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-nessus-vulnerability-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596432Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596448Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596448Z"}
{"id": "trtp-3817d148c8b7", "instruction": "How should organizations interpret and prioritize Nessus scan results?", "output": "Nessus results should be prioritized beyond raw severity ratings. First, validate findings to eliminate false positives by checking plugin output details. Focus on critical and high severity findings with available exploits or active exploitation in the wild. Consider asset criticality - a medium finding on a domain controller matters more than a critical on a test system. Group related findings for efficient remediation (e.g., all missing Windows patches). Use Nessus's built-in prioritization features like VPR (Vulnerability Priority Rating) which incorporates threat intelligence. Track remediation progress through differential reporting between scan cycles.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-nessus-vulnerability-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596432Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596455Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596455Z"}
{"id": "trtp-d7875242d6cd", "instruction": "Describe Nessus Vulnerability Scanner for vulnerability management.", "output": "Nessus Vulnerability Scanner: Nessus is a widely-deployed commercial vulnerability scanner from Tenable that uses a plugin-based architecture to detect vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and compliance violations across network infrastructure, operating systems, databases, and applications through both authenticated and unauthenticated scanning methodologies.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Enterprise vulnerability assessments\n- Compliance auditing (PCI, HIPAA, CIS)\n- Configuration baseline verification\n- Patch verification scanning", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-nessus-vulnerability-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596432Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596489Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596489Z"}
{"id": "trtp-2810ee444674", "instruction": "What are the recommended approaches for Nessus Vulnerability Scanner?", "output": "Best practices for Nessus Vulnerability Scanner:\n\n1. Keep plugins updated daily\n2. Use credential management for authenticated scans\n3. Configure scan policies for specific asset types\n4. Implement scan result trending over time\n\nNessus is a widely-deployed commercial vulnerability scanner from Tenable that uses a plugin-based architecture to detect vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and compliance violations across network infrastructure, operating systems, databases, and applications through both authenticated and unauthenticated scanning methodologies.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-nessus-vulnerability-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596432Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596503Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596503Z"}
{"id": "trtp-bad319c39015", "instruction": "What mistakes should you avoid with Nessus Vulnerability Scanner?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Nessus Vulnerability Scanner:\n\n- Outdated plugin feeds missing recent CVEs\n- Overly aggressive scans causing system issues\n- Ignoring informational findings\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Keep plugins updated daily\n- Use credential management for authenticated scans\n- Configure scan policies for specific asset types", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-nessus-vulnerability-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596432Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596516Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596516Z"}
{"id": "trtp-9e9a0a224407", "instruction": "When should you use Nessus Vulnerability Scanner?", "output": "Use cases for Nessus Vulnerability Scanner:\n\n- Enterprise vulnerability assessments\n- Compliance auditing (PCI, HIPAA, CIS)\n- Configuration baseline verification\n- Patch verification scanning\n\nNessus is a widely-deployed commercial vulnerability scanner from Tenable that uses a plugin-based architecture to detect vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and compliance violations across network infrastructure, operating systems, databases, and applications through both authenticated and unauthenticated scanning methodologies.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-nessus-vulnerability-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596432Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596527Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596527Z"}
{"id": "trtp-3d4b3a195efd", "instruction": "How does Qualys cloud architecture differ from traditional on-premises vulnerability scanners?", "output": "Qualys operates entirely as a cloud platform where scan engines (physical appliances, virtual scanners, or cloud agents) send data to Qualys's cloud infrastructure for processing and storage. Unlike traditional scanners requiring on-premises management servers, Qualys centralizes vulnerability data, policy management, and reporting in the cloud. Benefits include: automatic signature updates without local infrastructure, unified visibility across distributed environments, scalability without hardware procurement, built-in redundancy and disaster recovery, and API-first design for automation. Organizations deploy lightweight scan components while Qualys handles compute-intensive correlation and analysis.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-qualys-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596536Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596545Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596545Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ec434b1fd00d", "instruction": "What is Qualys TruRisk and how does it improve vulnerability prioritization?", "output": "Qualys TruRisk is a risk scoring algorithm that contextualizes vulnerabilities beyond CVSS severity by incorporating multiple factors: CVSS base score, real-time threat indicators (exploit availability, active campaigns, malware association), asset criticality and business context, compensating controls, and temporal factors. TruRisk produces a score from 0-1000 representing actual business risk rather than theoretical severity. This helps organizations focus on the 2-5% of vulnerabilities representing genuine risk rather than being overwhelmed by thousands of medium-high findings. TruRisk integrates with Qualys's threat intelligence feeds for continuous risk recalculation.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-qualys-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596536Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596552Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596552Z"}
{"id": "trtp-34eed9cd989c", "instruction": "How do Qualys Cloud Agents enable vulnerability management in dynamic cloud environments?", "output": "Qualys Cloud Agents are lightweight software installed on endpoints that provide continuous vulnerability assessment without network scanning. Agents collect system inventory and vulnerability data locally, transmitting findings to Qualys cloud over encrypted connections. In cloud environments, agents solve challenges traditional scanners face: assets with ephemeral IPs, workloads behind NAT/firewalls, auto-scaling groups where instances appear and disappear, and containers/serverless requiring inside-out visibility. Agents support Windows, Linux, macOS, and containerized workloads. They enable real-time detection (vulnerabilities appear within minutes of system changes) and work regardless of network architecture.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-qualys-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596536Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596564Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596564Z"}
{"id": "trtp-d420c2c2921d", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Qualys Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Qualys Vulnerability Management: Qualys is a cloud-based vulnerability management platform providing continuous monitoring through scanner appliances, cloud agents, and API integrations, offering vulnerability detection, asset inventory, compliance assessment, and web application scanning as unified cloud services with real-time visibility dashboards.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Cloud-native vulnerability management\n- Multi-cloud asset discovery\n- Continuous compliance monitoring\n- Global enterprise deployments", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-qualys-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596536Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596579Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596579Z"}
{"id": "trtp-970e0cc101d1", "instruction": "What are best practices for Qualys Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Best practices for Qualys Vulnerability Management:\n\n1. Deploy agents on cloud workloads\n2. Configure asset tagging for business context\n3. Integrate with CMDB for asset correlation\n4. Use TruRisk scoring for prioritization\n\nQualys is a cloud-based vulnerability management platform providing continuous monitoring through scanner appliances, cloud agents, and API integrations, offering vulnerability detection, asset inventory, compliance assessment, and web application scanning as unified cloud services with real-time visibility dashboards.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-qualys-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596536Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596592Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596592Z"}
{"id": "trtp-361d5ccc2c28", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Qualys Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Qualys Vulnerability Management:\n\n- Agent deployment gaps leaving blind spots\n- Tag taxonomy becoming unmanageable\n- Over-reliance on automated prioritization\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Deploy agents on cloud workloads\n- Configure asset tagging for business context\n- Integrate with CMDB for asset correlation", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-qualys-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596536Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596605Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596605Z"}
{"id": "trtp-cffa37ec72ad", "instruction": "When should you use Qualys Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Use cases for Qualys Vulnerability Management:\n\n- Cloud-native vulnerability management\n- Multi-cloud asset discovery\n- Continuous compliance monitoring\n- Global enterprise deployments\n\nQualys is a cloud-based vulnerability management platform providing continuous monitoring through scanner appliances, cloud agents, and API integrations, offering vulnerability detection, asset inventory, compliance assessment, and web application scanning as unified cloud services with real-time visibility dashboards.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-qualys-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596536Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596620Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596620Z"}
{"id": "trtp-c66ee6eebc4e", "instruction": "What is OpenVAS and how does it compare to commercial vulnerability scanners?", "output": "OpenVAS is the open-source vulnerability scanner at the core of Greenbone's security products. It provides comprehensive vulnerability detection through 50,000+ Network Vulnerability Tests (NVTs) covering CVEs, misconfigurations, and compliance checks. Compared to commercial scanners: OpenVAS offers comparable detection capabilities for network vulnerabilities but may lag in web application testing depth. It lacks enterprise features like built-in ticketing, advanced reporting, and vendor support SLAs. Setup complexity is higher, requiring Linux expertise. However, OpenVAS enables unlimited scanning without licensing costs, making it ideal for labs, research, and organizations with technical staff but limited budgets.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-openvas-open-source-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596629Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596638Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596638Z"}
{"id": "trtp-8f3098867825", "instruction": "How do you deploy and configure OpenVAS for effective vulnerability scanning?", "output": "OpenVAS deployment involves installing the Greenbone Vulnerability Manager (GVM) stack: the OpenVAS scanner engine, gvmd manager daemon, PostgreSQL database, and GSA web interface. Configuration steps include: synchronizing NVT feeds (greenbone-nvt-sync), creating scan targets by IP range or hostname, selecting scan configurations (Full and Fast, Full and Deep, etc.), configuring credentials for authenticated scans, and scheduling scan tasks. For enterprise use, deploy multiple scanner sensors coordinated by a central manager. Container deployments via Docker simplify setup. Critical post-installation tasks include firewall rules for scanner-to-target communication and allocating sufficient resources for the PostgreSQL database.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-openvas-open-source-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596629Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596645Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596645Z"}
{"id": "trtp-47a4aa5781a8", "instruction": "What are Network Vulnerability Tests (NVTs) and how do they work in OpenVAS?", "output": "NVTs are individual test scripts written in NASL (Nessus Attack Scripting Language) that OpenVAS executes to detect specific vulnerabilities. Each NVT contains: test logic to detect the vulnerability, metadata including CVE references and severity, and reporting templates for findings. The NVT feed is maintained by Greenbone and community contributors, updated regularly with new CVE detections. During scans, OpenVAS selects relevant NVTs based on target port scans and service detection, then executes them against discovered services. Organizations can write custom NVTs for internal applications or emerging threats not yet in the public feed.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-openvas-open-source-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596629Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596666Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596666Z"}
{"id": "trtp-16ccbc14dfd3", "instruction": "What is OpenVAS Open-Source Scanner?", "output": "OpenVAS Open-Source Scanner: OpenVAS (Open Vulnerability Assessment Scanner) is an open-source vulnerability scanning framework maintained by Greenbone Networks, providing comprehensive vulnerability testing capabilities through regularly updated Network Vulnerability Tests (NVTs) covering CVEs, misconfigurations, and security best practices.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Budget-conscious vulnerability scanning\n- Security research and testing\n- Educational environments\n- Custom vulnerability detection development", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-openvas-open-source-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596629Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596679Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596679Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f4e37757679b", "instruction": "How should organizations implement OpenVAS Open-Source Scanner?", "output": "Best practices for OpenVAS Open-Source Scanner:\n\n1. Update NVT feeds regularly\n2. Use Greenbone Security Assistant for management\n3. Configure appropriate scan configs for targets\n4. Implement result filtering and reporting\n\nOpenVAS (Open Vulnerability Assessment Scanner) is an open-source vulnerability scanning framework maintained by Greenbone Networks, providing comprehensive vulnerability testing capabilities through regularly updated Network Vulnerability Tests (NVTs) covering CVEs, misconfigurations, and security best practices.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-openvas-open-source-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596629Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596692Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596692Z"}
{"id": "trtp-4e2468bf33eb", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with OpenVAS Open-Source Scanner?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with OpenVAS Open-Source Scanner:\n\n- Complex initial setup and configuration\n- NVT updates requiring manual intervention\n- Limited enterprise features without commercial support\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Update NVT feeds regularly\n- Use Greenbone Security Assistant for management\n- Configure appropriate scan configs for targets", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-openvas-open-source-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596629Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596704Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596704Z"}
{"id": "trtp-2efb3bdd0b70", "instruction": "What are the use cases for OpenVAS Open-Source Scanner?", "output": "Use cases for OpenVAS Open-Source Scanner:\n\n- Budget-conscious vulnerability scanning\n- Security research and testing\n- Educational environments\n- Custom vulnerability detection development\n\nOpenVAS (Open Vulnerability Assessment Scanner) is an open-source vulnerability scanning framework maintained by Greenbone Networks, providing comprehensive vulnerability testing capabilities through regularly updated Network Vulnerability Tests (NVTs) covering CVEs, misconfigurations, and security best practices.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-openvas-open-source-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596629Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596715Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596715Z"}
{"id": "trtp-fb13b8e502f0", "instruction": "What makes Nuclei different from traditional vulnerability scanners?", "output": "Nuclei differs from traditional scanners in several ways: it uses human-readable YAML templates making detection logic transparent and customizable, it's designed for speed enabling scanning of thousands of hosts rapidly, it's open-source with a massive community-contributed template library (4000+ templates), and it focuses on modern web vulnerabilities and misconfigurations. Traditional scanners use proprietary detection logic and optimize for compliance reporting. Nuclei excels at bug bounty hunting, security research, and CI/CD integration where flexibility and speed matter more than enterprise features. Its template model enables rapid response to new CVEs - often within hours of disclosure.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-nuclei-template-based-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596724Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596737Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596737Z"}
{"id": "trtp-1046cc207b43", "instruction": "How do Nuclei templates work and how can you create custom templates?", "output": "Nuclei templates are YAML files defining detection logic through structured fields: id (unique identifier), info (metadata, severity, tags), requests (HTTP/DNS/network probes), and matchers (conditions indicating vulnerability presence). A basic template sends requests and matches responses using status codes, body content, headers, or regex patterns. Advanced templates support: multiple request chaining, dynamic variable extraction, conditional logic, and helper functions. To create custom templates: identify the vulnerability signature, craft requests triggering the vulnerable condition, define matchers for positive detection, and test against known-vulnerable and patched instances. Custom templates enable detection of organization-specific applications and zero-days.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-nuclei-template-based-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596724Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596744Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596744Z"}
{"id": "trtp-0fb611a1e885", "instruction": "How should Nuclei be integrated into security workflows and CI/CD pipelines?", "output": "Nuclei integrates into security workflows through several patterns: in CI/CD pipelines, run Nuclei against staging deployments before production releases using templates filtered to relevant severity (e.g., -severity critical,high); for continuous monitoring, schedule Nuclei scans against production with appropriate rate limits and alert on new findings; during penetration tests, use Nuclei for rapid initial reconnaissance before manual testing; in bug bounty, combine with other ProjectDiscovery tools (subfinder, httpx) for automated reconnaissance chains. Integration points include: JSON output for SIEM ingestion, webhook notifications for immediate alerts, and GitHub Actions for PR-triggered scans. Always implement rate limiting and scope restrictions to avoid impacting production systems.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-nuclei-template-based-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596724Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596751Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596751Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ca00baa7f721", "instruction": "Explain Nuclei Template-Based Scanner in vulnerability management.", "output": "Nuclei Template-Based Scanner: Nuclei is a fast, template-based vulnerability scanner from ProjectDiscovery designed for security researchers and penetration testers, using YAML templates to define detection logic for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, exposed panels, and CVEs across web applications, networks, and cloud services.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Bug bounty reconnaissance\n- CI/CD security pipeline integration\n- Custom vulnerability detection\n- Large-scale internet scanning", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-nuclei-template-based-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596724Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596764Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596764Z"}
{"id": "trtp-7d6d674c5932", "instruction": "How should organizations implement Nuclei Template-Based Scanner?", "output": "Best practices for Nuclei Template-Based Scanner:\n\n1. Update templates from nuclei-templates repo\n2. Create custom templates for internal apps\n3. Use rate limiting to avoid target overload\n4. Filter templates by severity and category\n\nNuclei is a fast, template-based vulnerability scanner from ProjectDiscovery designed for security researchers and penetration testers, using YAML templates to define detection logic for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, exposed panels, and CVEs across web applications, networks, and cloud services.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-nuclei-template-based-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596724Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596776Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596776Z"}
{"id": "trtp-9db87be90aa1", "instruction": "What goes wrong with Nuclei Template-Based Scanner?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Nuclei Template-Based Scanner:\n\n- Running all templates without filtering\n- Missing context-specific vulnerabilities\n- Template quality varies in community contributions\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Update templates from nuclei-templates repo\n- Create custom templates for internal apps\n- Use rate limiting to avoid target overload", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-nuclei-template-based-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596724Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596788Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596788Z"}
{"id": "trtp-349c258a8888", "instruction": "What are the use cases for Nuclei Template-Based Scanner?", "output": "Use cases for Nuclei Template-Based Scanner:\n\n- Bug bounty reconnaissance\n- CI/CD security pipeline integration\n- Custom vulnerability detection\n- Large-scale internet scanning\n\nNuclei is a fast, template-based vulnerability scanner from ProjectDiscovery designed for security researchers and penetration testers, using YAML templates to define detection logic for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, exposed panels, and CVEs across web applications, networks, and cloud services.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-nuclei-template-based-scanner", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596724Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596799Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596799Z"}
{"id": "trtp-a928fdd6765b", "instruction": "How should organizations determine vulnerability scanning frequency for different asset types?", "output": "Scanning frequency should align with asset risk and change velocity. Critical infrastructure (domain controllers, databases, internet-facing systems) warrants weekly or continuous scanning. Standard servers benefit from bi-weekly to monthly scans. Workstations with auto-patching may need monthly verification. Dynamic cloud environments require agent-based continuous monitoring since traditional scheduled scans miss ephemeral workloads. Compliance frameworks mandate minimums (PCI-DSS requires quarterly external scans, but internal should be more frequent). High-change environments (DevOps) should integrate scanning into deployment pipelines for near-continuous assessment. Balance coverage needs against scan fatigue and operational overhead.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-vulnerability-scan-scheduling", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596807Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596821Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596821Z"}
{"id": "trtp-bbde3347f128", "instruction": "What factors should influence vulnerability scan timing and maintenance windows?", "output": "Scan timing factors include: system criticality (avoid production hours for business-critical systems), scan intensity (authenticated deep scans are more disruptive than lightweight checks), network bandwidth (large scans can saturate links), geographic distribution (schedule for local business hours across regions), and system maintenance windows (align with existing change windows when possible). Production systems should use conservative scan settings during business hours with aggressive scans reserved for maintenance windows. Consider database scans carefully as some checks can lock tables. Web application scans generating heavy traffic should occur during low-usage periods. Document and communicate scan windows to avoid incident response to scan activity.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-vulnerability-scan-scheduling", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596807Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596829Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596829Z"}
{"id": "trtp-2dafab95d67b", "instruction": "How does continuous vulnerability monitoring differ from scheduled scanning?", "output": "Continuous monitoring provides real-time vulnerability visibility through agent-based or passive detection rather than periodic active scans. Benefits include: immediate detection when systems become vulnerable (new CVE published, patch rolled back, new software installed), reduced scanning infrastructure since agents report asynchronously, visibility into assets that may be offline during scheduled scans, and better coverage of dynamic environments. Implementation approaches include deploying lightweight agents, integrating with endpoint detection and response (EDR), passive network monitoring for service changes, and API integration with CMDBs for configuration drift detection. Continuous monitoring complements rather than replaces periodic comprehensive scans which provide deeper assessment and validation.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-vulnerability-scan-scheduling", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596807Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596835Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596835Z"}
{"id": "trtp-9cefc8bf7c0a", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Vulnerability Scan Scheduling?", "output": "Vulnerability Scan Scheduling: Scan scheduling involves planning vulnerability assessment frequency, timing, and scope to balance security visibility needs against operational impact, considering factors like asset criticality, change frequency, compliance requirements, network bandwidth, and system availability windows.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Compliance-driven scanning cadences\n- Change-triggered vulnerability assessment\n- Continuous monitoring programs\n- Risk-based scanning prioritization", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-vulnerability-scan-scheduling", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596807Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596847Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596847Z"}
{"id": "trtp-25fe2e370270", "instruction": "What are the recommended approaches for Vulnerability Scan Scheduling?", "output": "Best practices for Vulnerability Scan Scheduling:\n\n1. Scan critical assets more frequently\n2. Schedule intensive scans during maintenance windows\n3. Implement continuous lightweight monitoring\n4. Align scanning with patch cycles\n\nScan scheduling involves planning vulnerability assessment frequency, timing, and scope to balance security visibility needs against operational impact, considering factors like asset criticality, change frequency, compliance requirements, network bandwidth, and system availability windows.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-vulnerability-scan-scheduling", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596807Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596863Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596863Z"}
{"id": "trtp-098566225249", "instruction": "What mistakes should you avoid with Vulnerability Scan Scheduling?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Vulnerability Scan Scheduling:\n\n- Scanning too infrequently to detect new vulnerabilities\n- Disrupting production with poorly timed scans\n- One-size-fits-all scheduling ignoring asset differences\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Scan critical assets more frequently\n- Schedule intensive scans during maintenance windows\n- Implement continuous lightweight monitoring", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-vulnerability-scan-scheduling", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596807Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596876Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596876Z"}
{"id": "trtp-77fe1ca9b5cd", "instruction": "When should you use Vulnerability Scan Scheduling?", "output": "Use cases for Vulnerability Scan Scheduling:\n\n- Compliance-driven scanning cadences\n- Change-triggered vulnerability assessment\n- Continuous monitoring programs\n- Risk-based scanning prioritization\n\nScan scheduling involves planning vulnerability assessment frequency, timing, and scope to balance security visibility needs against operational impact, considering factors like asset criticality, change frequency, compliance requirements, network bandwidth, and system availability windows.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-scanning-vulnerability-scan-scheduling", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596807Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596890Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596890Z"}
{"id": "trtp-0824653909b1", "instruction": "What are the main types of memory corruption vulnerabilities and how do they differ?", "output": "Memory corruption vulnerabilities include: Buffer overflows (stack/heap) where data exceeds allocated boundaries, overwriting adjacent memory; Use-after-free where code accesses memory after deallocation, potentially controlled by attacker-allocated data; Double-free corrupting heap metadata by freeing memory twice; Integer overflows where arithmetic wraps unexpectedly, causing undersized allocations; Format string bugs where user input is interpreted as format specifiers, enabling memory read/write. Stack overflows typically target return addresses for code execution, heap corruption manipulates allocator metadata, and use-after-free exploits object lifecycle mismanagement. All require memory-unsafe languages like C/C++ and can achieve arbitrary code execution.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-memory-corruption-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596902Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596911Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596911Z"}
{"id": "trtp-e776772fa713", "instruction": "How do modern memory protection mechanisms mitigate corruption vulnerabilities?", "output": "Modern systems employ multiple layers: ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization) randomizes memory addresses, making exploitation unreliable; DEP/NX (Data Execution Prevention) marks data pages non-executable, preventing shellcode execution; Stack canaries detect buffer overflows by checking sentinel values before returns; CFI (Control Flow Integrity) validates indirect calls against expected targets; Safe Stack separates return addresses from buffers; RELRO (Relocation Read-Only) protects GOT entries. These mitigations raise exploitation difficulty but aren't foolproof - information leaks defeat ASLR, ROP chains bypass DEP, and implementation weaknesses exist. Defense-in-depth combining multiple mechanisms provides strongest protection.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-memory-corruption-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596902Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596918Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596918Z"}
{"id": "trtp-fe4c91db5c71", "instruction": "Why are memory corruption vulnerabilities still prevalent despite decades of awareness?", "output": "Memory corruption persists due to: massive legacy C/C++ codebases that can't be easily rewritten; performance-critical systems where memory-safe languages add overhead; operating systems and firmware requiring low-level memory access; developer errors in complex memory management; third-party libraries with unknown vulnerabilities; and the difficulty of retrofitting safety into existing architectures. While memory-safe languages eliminate many issues, C/C++ remain necessary for systems programming, embedded devices, and performance-sensitive applications. Organizations should prioritize memory safety in new development, deploy compiler mitigations, and focus remediation on exposed attack surfaces in legacy code.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-memory-corruption-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596902Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596925Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596925Z"}
{"id": "trtp-13b90ad054b2", "instruction": "Explain Memory Corruption Vulnerabilities in vulnerability management.", "output": "Memory Corruption Vulnerabilities: Memory corruption vulnerabilities occur when software improperly handles memory operations, allowing attackers to overwrite, read, or manipulate memory contents in unintended ways. This class includes buffer overflows, use-after-free, double-free, heap corruption, integer overflows, and format string vulnerabilities that can lead to code execution or information disclosure.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Identifying exploitable conditions in C/C++ applications\n- Prioritizing patches for memory-unsafe code\n- Selecting appropriate mitigations (ASLR, DEP, CFI)\n- Assessing risk in legacy systems", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-memory-corruption-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596902Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596938Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596938Z"}
{"id": "trtp-537247d026c2", "instruction": "How should organizations implement Memory Corruption Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Best practices for Memory Corruption Vulnerabilities:\n\n1. Deploy memory-safe languages where possible\n2. Enable compiler protections (stack canaries, ASLR)\n3. Implement bounds checking and safe functions\n4. Use memory sanitizers during development\n\nMemory corruption vulnerabilities occur when software improperly handles memory operations, allowing attackers to overwrite, read, or manipulate memory contents in unintended ways. This class includes buffer overflows, use-after-free, double-free, heap corruption, integer overflows, and format string vulnerabilities that can lead to code execution or information disclosure.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-memory-corruption-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596902Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596951Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596951Z"}
{"id": "trtp-eeea7172fb6c", "instruction": "What mistakes should you avoid with Memory Corruption Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Memory Corruption Vulnerabilities:\n\n- Assuming managed languages eliminate memory issues\n- Disabling protections for performance\n- Incomplete migration from unsafe functions\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Deploy memory-safe languages where possible\n- Enable compiler protections (stack canaries, ASLR)\n- Implement bounds checking and safe functions", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-memory-corruption-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596902Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596963Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596963Z"}
{"id": "trtp-6920d963ac3f", "instruction": "What scenarios require Memory Corruption Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Use cases for Memory Corruption Vulnerabilities:\n\n- Identifying exploitable conditions in C/C++ applications\n- Prioritizing patches for memory-unsafe code\n- Selecting appropriate mitigations (ASLR, DEP, CFI)\n- Assessing risk in legacy systems\n\nMemory corruption vulnerabilities occur when software improperly handles memory operations, allowing attackers to overwrite, read, or manipulate memory contents in unintended ways. This class includes buffer overflows, use-after-free, double-free, heap corruption, integer overflows, and format string vulnerabilities that can lead to code execution or information disclosure.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-memory-corruption-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596902Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596978Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596978Z"}
{"id": "trtp-63530bc63529", "instruction": "What is SQL injection and what are its main variants?", "output": "SQL injection occurs when user input is concatenated into SQL queries without proper sanitization, allowing attackers to modify query logic. Variants include: In-band SQLi where results appear directly in responses (UNION-based extracts data via combined queries, Error-based extracts data through error messages); Blind SQLi where no direct output exists (Boolean-based infers data through true/false responses, Time-based uses delays to extract information bit-by-bit); Out-of-band SQLi exfiltrates data through DNS or HTTP requests when other channels are blocked. Second-order injection occurs when stored input is later used unsafely. Prevention requires parameterized queries which separate data from code, making injection syntactically impossible.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-injection-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596986Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596995Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596995Z"}
{"id": "trtp-cbb8dfaa09c4", "instruction": "How does command injection differ from other injection types and how is it prevented?", "output": "Command injection occurs when user input is passed to system shell commands, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary operating system commands. Unlike SQL injection targeting databases, command injection directly compromises the underlying server. Attackers use shell metacharacters (;, |, &&, ||, backticks, $()) to chain malicious commands. Prevention: avoid shell commands entirely using native language libraries instead; if unavoidable, use allowlist validation for expected input formats, escape shell metacharacters properly, run commands with minimal privileges, and use parameterized command execution where available (e.g., subprocess with shell=False in Python). Command injection is particularly dangerous as it immediately provides server access.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-injection-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596986Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597002Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597002Z"}
{"id": "trtp-37f1cfb85b60", "instruction": "Why doesn't input validation alone prevent injection attacks?", "output": "Input validation alone fails because: it's difficult to anticipate all malicious patterns (blocklists are easily bypassed with encoding, case variations, or alternative syntax); validation rules may be inconsistent across application layers; different contexts require different encoding (HTML vs SQL vs shell); stored data may be used in unexpected contexts later; and complex applications have numerous injection points. The fundamental solution is context-appropriate output encoding/escaping at the point of use combined with parameterized queries that structurally separate code from data. Input validation remains valuable for business logic but shouldn't be the primary injection defense. Defense-in-depth combines validation, parameterization, encoding, and least privilege.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-injection-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596986Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597009Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597009Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ca18d9215629", "instruction": "Explain Injection Vulnerabilities in vulnerability management.", "output": "Injection Vulnerabilities: Injection vulnerabilities occur when untrusted input is incorporated into commands, queries, or markup without proper sanitization, allowing attackers to modify the intended execution context. This class includes SQL injection, command injection, LDAP injection, XPath injection, and various interpreter injection attacks.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Web application security testing\n- API security assessment\n- Database security hardening\n- Input validation design review", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-injection-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596986Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597021Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597021Z"}
{"id": "trtp-53f48d8eac8d", "instruction": "How should organizations implement Injection Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Best practices for Injection Vulnerabilities:\n\n1. Use parameterized queries and prepared statements\n2. Implement strict input validation\n3. Apply principle of least privilege to database accounts\n4. Encode output appropriate to context\n\nInjection vulnerabilities occur when untrusted input is incorporated into commands, queries, or markup without proper sanitization, allowing attackers to modify the intended execution context. This class includes SQL injection, command injection, LDAP injection, XPath injection, and various interpreter injection attacks.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-injection-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596986Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597034Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597034Z"}
{"id": "trtp-3ad8c2152ea7", "instruction": "What goes wrong with Injection Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Injection Vulnerabilities:\n\n- Relying solely on input filtering\n- Inconsistent encoding across application layers\n- Stored procedures not eliminating injection risk\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Use parameterized queries and prepared statements\n- Implement strict input validation\n- Apply principle of least privilege to database accounts", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-injection-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596986Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597049Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597049Z"}
{"id": "trtp-e012dc701f0c", "instruction": "What scenarios require Injection Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Use cases for Injection Vulnerabilities:\n\n- Web application security testing\n- API security assessment\n- Database security hardening\n- Input validation design review\n\nInjection vulnerabilities occur when untrusted input is incorporated into commands, queries, or markup without proper sanitization, allowing attackers to modify the intended execution context. This class includes SQL injection, command injection, LDAP injection, XPath injection, and various interpreter injection attacks.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-injection-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.596986Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597064Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597064Z"}
{"id": "trtp-3b50ce48eafd", "instruction": "What are the most critical authentication vulnerabilities and their impact?", "output": "Critical authentication vulnerabilities include: Credential stuffing using breached password databases against services where users reuse passwords; Broken authentication logic with flaws like authentication bypass through parameter manipulation; Weak password storage using MD5/SHA1 without salting enabling mass cracking; Session fixation where attackers set session IDs before victim login; Session hijacking through token theft via XSS or network interception; Missing account lockout enabling unlimited brute force; and Insecure password recovery exposing accounts through weak reset flows. Impact ranges from individual account compromise to complete system takeover when admin credentials are exposed. These vulnerabilities directly undermine identity assurance.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-authentication-and-session-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597072Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597080Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597080Z"}
{"id": "trtp-94ba8bf98275", "instruction": "How should passwords be securely stored and why do many implementations fail?", "output": "Secure password storage requires: using adaptive hashing algorithms (bcrypt, scrypt, Argon2) designed for passwords with configurable work factors; unique random salts per password preventing rainbow tables and parallel cracking; appropriate work factor balancing security and performance (target 100ms+ hash time). Implementations fail by: using fast hashes (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256) that enable billions of guesses per second; missing or reusing salts; insufficient work factors; or storing plaintext/reversible encryption. Even with proper hashing, weak passwords remain vulnerable to targeted attacks. Modern guidance recommends password breach checking (HIBP API), length-based requirements over complexity, and encouraging password managers.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-authentication-and-session-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597072Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597087Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597087Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ade9412652dd", "instruction": "What session management vulnerabilities exist and how are they mitigated?", "output": "Session vulnerabilities include: Predictable session IDs enabling guessing or sequential enumeration; Session fixation where attackers set tokens before authentication; Insufficient session expiration allowing indefinite access; Session tokens in URLs exposed in logs, referers, and browser history; Missing secure/HttpOnly flags enabling token theft; Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) abusing authenticated sessions. Mitigations: generate cryptographically random session IDs (128+ bits entropy); regenerate sessions after authentication state changes; set appropriate expiration with idle and absolute timeouts; transmit tokens only in cookies with Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite flags; implement CSRF tokens for state-changing operations; and invalidate sessions server-side on logout.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-authentication-and-session-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597072Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597094Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597094Z"}
{"id": "trtp-11ee4e0b7f18", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Authentication and Session Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Authentication and Session Vulnerabilities: Authentication vulnerabilities allow attackers to bypass identity verification or hijack authenticated sessions. This class includes weak credentials, broken authentication logic, session fixation, session hijacking, credential stuffing, insecure password storage, and missing multi-factor authentication.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Penetration testing login mechanisms\n- Password policy assessment\n- Session management review\n- MFA implementation validation", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-authentication-and-session-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597072Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597106Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597106Z"}
{"id": "trtp-3f22a7943b2b", "instruction": "How should organizations implement Authentication and Session Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Best practices for Authentication and Session Vulnerabilities:\n\n1. Implement strong password policies with breach checking\n2. Use secure session management with proper token handling\n3. Deploy multi-factor authentication\n4. Hash passwords with modern algorithms (bcrypt, Argon2)\n\nAuthentication vulnerabilities allow attackers to bypass identity verification or hijack authenticated sessions. This class includes weak credentials, broken authentication logic, session fixation, session hijacking, credential stuffing, insecure password storage, and missing multi-factor authentication.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-authentication-and-session-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597072Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597119Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597119Z"}
{"id": "trtp-44bdb0a7823d", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Authentication and Session Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Authentication and Session Vulnerabilities:\n\n- Password complexity without breach checking\n- Session tokens in URLs or predictable patterns\n- MFA bypass through fallback mechanisms\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Implement strong password policies with breach checking\n- Use secure session management with proper token handling\n- Deploy multi-factor authentication", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-authentication-and-session-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597072Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597137Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597137Z"}
{"id": "trtp-a4697e2767b6", "instruction": "When should you use Authentication and Session Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Use cases for Authentication and Session Vulnerabilities:\n\n- Penetration testing login mechanisms\n- Password policy assessment\n- Session management review\n- MFA implementation validation\n\nAuthentication vulnerabilities allow attackers to bypass identity verification or hijack authenticated sessions. This class includes weak credentials, broken authentication logic, session fixation, session hijacking, credential stuffing, insecure password storage, and missing multi-factor authentication.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-authentication-and-session-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597072Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597149Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597149Z"}
{"id": "trtp-e24300ac0f34", "instruction": "What is IDOR (Insecure Direct Object Reference) and why is it so common?", "output": "IDOR occurs when applications expose internal implementation references (database IDs, filenames) in URLs or parameters without verifying the requesting user has access to that specific object. Example: changing /api/users/123/profile to /api/users/124/profile to access another user's data. IDOR is common because: it's easy to implement direct database ID references; developers focus on authentication but neglect per-object authorization; automated scanners often miss it (requires business logic understanding); and microservices may lack centralized authorization. Prevention requires checking authorization for every object access, not just authentication. Using indirect references (mapping user-specific tokens to internal IDs) or implementing row-level security adds protection layers.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-authorization-and-access-control-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597158Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597167Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597167Z"}
{"id": "trtp-39b1138121a0", "instruction": "How does horizontal privilege escalation differ from vertical privilege escalation?", "output": "Horizontal privilege escalation allows accessing resources of another user at the same privilege level - a regular user viewing another regular user's data (e.g., IDOR accessing another customer's orders). Vertical privilege escalation allows accessing higher-privilege functionality - a regular user accessing admin functions. Horizontal exploitation often involves predictable identifiers or missing per-object authorization checks. Vertical exploitation typically involves accessing unprotected admin endpoints, manipulating role parameters, or exploiting privilege management flaws. Both require robust authorization: horizontal through consistent object-level access checks, vertical through function-level access control validating user roles before any privileged operation.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-authorization-and-access-control-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597158Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597174Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597174Z"}
{"id": "trtp-789ac9ec183c", "instruction": "What patterns effectively prevent broken access control vulnerabilities?", "output": "Effective access control patterns include: Deny by default requiring explicit grants rather than explicit denies; Centralized authorization logic avoiding scattered checks that may be inconsistent; Attribute-based access control (ABAC) evaluating user attributes, resource attributes, and context; Row-level security in databases enforcing access at data layer; Authorization middleware validating permissions before handlers execute; Indirect object references mapping user-specific tokens to internal IDs; Immutable authorization context preventing request tampering; Comprehensive logging of access decisions for detection and forensics. Testing must include authorization-specific scenarios: accessing other users' resources, accessing admin functions, manipulating role claims, and testing all API endpoints regardless of UI exposure.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-authorization-and-access-control-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597158Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597181Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597181Z"}
{"id": "trtp-73d3cc41b96e", "instruction": "Explain Authorization and Access Control Vulnerabilities in vulnerability management.", "output": "Authorization and Access Control Vulnerabilities: Authorization vulnerabilities occur when applications fail to properly enforce access controls, allowing users to access resources or perform actions beyond their intended privileges. This includes insecure direct object references (IDOR), privilege escalation, missing function-level access control, and broken access control patterns.\n\nKey use cases:\n- API authorization testing\n- Multi-tenant security validation\n- Role-based access control review\n- Privilege escalation assessment", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-authorization-and-access-control-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597158Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597193Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597193Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f4873a7d186f", "instruction": "What are best practices for Authorization and Access Control Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Best practices for Authorization and Access Control Vulnerabilities:\n\n1. Implement authorization at every access point\n2. Use indirect references (mapping tables) instead of direct IDs\n3. Deny by default, explicitly grant access\n4. Log authorization failures for detection\n\nAuthorization vulnerabilities occur when applications fail to properly enforce access controls, allowing users to access resources or perform actions beyond their intended privileges. This includes insecure direct object references (IDOR), privilege escalation, missing function-level access control, and broken access control patterns.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-authorization-and-access-control-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597158Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597210Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597210Z"}
{"id": "trtp-bb137ee7ccdf", "instruction": "What goes wrong with Authorization and Access Control Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Authorization and Access Control Vulnerabilities:\n\n- Client-side authorization checks only\n- Assuming authentication implies authorization\n- Inconsistent enforcement across API endpoints\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Implement authorization at every access point\n- Use indirect references (mapping tables) instead of direct IDs\n- Deny by default, explicitly grant access", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-authorization-and-access-control-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597158Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597222Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597222Z"}
{"id": "trtp-747998e810d2", "instruction": "When should you use Authorization and Access Control Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Use cases for Authorization and Access Control Vulnerabilities:\n\n- API authorization testing\n- Multi-tenant security validation\n- Role-based access control review\n- Privilege escalation assessment\n\nAuthorization vulnerabilities occur when applications fail to properly enforce access controls, allowing users to access resources or perform actions beyond their intended privileges. This includes insecure direct object references (IDOR), privilege escalation, missing function-level access control, and broken access control patterns.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-authorization-and-access-control-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597158Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597233Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597233Z"}
{"id": "trtp-3a0c6a3a1c75", "instruction": "What are the most common cryptographic implementation mistakes?", "output": "Common cryptographic mistakes include: Using ECB mode which reveals patterns in encrypted data; Reusing IVs/nonces with stream ciphers or CTR mode, breaking confidentiality; Hardcoding encryption keys in source code; Using deprecated algorithms (DES, MD5 for security, SHA-1 for signatures); Implementing custom cryptographic algorithms; Weak random number generation for keys/IVs; Not using authenticated encryption allowing undetected tampering; Improper certificate validation enabling MITM attacks; Side-channel leaks through timing, caching, or error messages; and Poor key management (shared keys, no rotation, insecure storage). These mistakes often completely undermine cryptographic protection despite using theoretically secure algorithms.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-cryptographic-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597242Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597250Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597250Z"}
{"id": "trtp-996cdf9cb10b", "instruction": "How do TLS/SSL vulnerabilities affect system security?", "output": "TLS vulnerabilities compromise confidentiality and integrity of encrypted communications. Historical vulnerabilities include: POODLE exploiting SSL 3.0 CBC padding; BEAST attacking CBC in TLS 1.0; Heartbleed leaking server memory via OpenSSL bug; DROWN enabling cross-protocol attacks via SSLv2. Configuration issues include: supporting weak cipher suites (RC4, DES, export ciphers); using RSA key exchange without forward secrecy; incomplete certificate chains; missing certificate validation; and vulnerable protocol versions (SSLv3, TLS 1.0/1.1). Modern configuration requires TLS 1.2+ (preferably 1.3), ECDHE key exchange for forward secrecy, AES-GCM or ChaCha20-Poly1305 ciphers, proper certificate pinning where appropriate, and HSTS to prevent downgrade attacks.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-cryptographic-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597242Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597258Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597258Z"}
{"id": "trtp-5e1c9807f6da", "instruction": "What is the importance of key management and what vulnerabilities arise from poor practices?", "output": "Key management vulnerabilities include: Keys stored in source code repositories (frequently exposed in breaches); Shared keys across environments (compromise of dev exposes prod); No key rotation (compromised keys remain valid indefinitely); Keys transmitted insecurely (email, chat, unencrypted channels); Insufficient key length allowing brute force; No key escrow/recovery (data loss when keys lost); Weak key derivation from passwords; and Keys accessible to too many systems/users. Proper key management requires: hardware security modules (HSMs) or key management services for critical keys; separate keys per environment and purpose; automated rotation schedules; secure key distribution mechanisms; documented procedures for key compromise response; and principle of least privilege for key access. Poor key management makes strong encryption worthless.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-cryptographic-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597242Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597264Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597264Z"}
{"id": "trtp-225ae22adbda", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Cryptographic Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Cryptographic Vulnerabilities: Cryptographic vulnerabilities arise from improper implementation or use of cryptographic systems, including weak algorithms, insufficient key length, poor random number generation, improper key management, side-channel attacks, and protocol weaknesses that undermine confidentiality, integrity, or authenticity guarantees.\n\nKey use cases:\n- TLS configuration assessment\n- Cryptographic implementation review\n- Key management audit\n- Data protection compliance", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-cryptographic-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597242Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597276Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597276Z"}
{"id": "trtp-168008aaea7b", "instruction": "How should organizations implement Cryptographic Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Best practices for Cryptographic Vulnerabilities:\n\n1. Use established libraries, never roll your own crypto\n2. Follow current algorithm recommendations (AES-256, RSA-2048+)\n3. Implement proper key management lifecycle\n4. Use authenticated encryption (GCM, ChaCha20-Poly1305)\n\nCryptographic vulnerabilities arise from improper implementation or use of cryptographic systems, including weak algorithms, insufficient key length, poor random number generation, improper key management, side-channel attacks, and protocol weaknesses that undermine confidentiality, integrity, or authenticity guarantees.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-cryptographic-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597242Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597289Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597289Z"}
{"id": "trtp-da839bfffcfd", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Cryptographic Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Cryptographic Vulnerabilities:\n\n- ECB mode revealing patterns in encrypted data\n- Predictable IVs/nonces enabling attacks\n- Hardcoded encryption keys in source code\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Use established libraries, never roll your own crypto\n- Follow current algorithm recommendations (AES-256, RSA-2048+)\n- Implement proper key management lifecycle", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-cryptographic-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597242Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597305Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597305Z"}
{"id": "trtp-09696a8ab61b", "instruction": "When should you use Cryptographic Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Use cases for Cryptographic Vulnerabilities:\n\n- TLS configuration assessment\n- Cryptographic implementation review\n- Key management audit\n- Data protection compliance\n\nCryptographic vulnerabilities arise from improper implementation or use of cryptographic systems, including weak algorithms, insufficient key length, poor random number generation, improper key management, side-channel attacks, and protocol weaknesses that undermine confidentiality, integrity, or authenticity guarantees.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-cryptographic-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597242Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597316Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597316Z"}
{"id": "trtp-262caded0dea", "instruction": "What are the most dangerous security misconfigurations and their impact?", "output": "Critical misconfigurations include: Default credentials on databases, admin panels, and network devices enabling immediate unauthorized access; Publicly exposed cloud storage (S3 buckets, Azure blobs) leaking sensitive data; Verbose error messages revealing stack traces, database queries, and internal paths; Debug features enabled in production exposing sensitive functionality; Permissive CORS allowing credential theft from any origin; Unnecessary network services increasing attack surface; Directory listing enabled exposing file structures; Missing security headers (CSP, HSTS) enabling client-side attacks; and Overly permissive IAM policies granting excessive cloud access. These often require no exploitation skill - just discovery - making them frequently targeted by automated scanners.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-security-misconfiguration", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597325Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597333Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597333Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ccdbc3a002bd", "instruction": "How do cloud misconfigurations lead to breaches and how can they be prevented?", "output": "Cloud misconfigurations cause breaches through: Public S3 buckets exposed via predictable naming or ACL errors; Overly permissive IAM roles enabling lateral movement; Security groups allowing unrestricted inbound access; Unencrypted data stores violating data protection requirements; Missing CloudTrail logging hiding attacker activity; Instance metadata service (IMDS) exploitation; and Exposed management ports (SSH, RDP) to internet. Prevention requires: Infrastructure as Code (IaC) with security guardrails; Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) tools for continuous monitoring; principle of least privilege for all IAM policies; private by default storage with explicit public exceptions; security group reviews restricting sources; and mandatory encryption for data at rest and in transit. Cloud-native security services provide detection and automated remediation capabilities.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-security-misconfiguration", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597325Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597340Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597340Z"}
{"id": "trtp-48f334a80225", "instruction": "What role does configuration management play in vulnerability prevention?", "output": "Configuration management prevents vulnerabilities by: Establishing secure baselines ensuring all systems meet minimum security standards; Automating deployment eliminating manual configuration errors; Detecting drift from approved configurations indicating potential compromise or misconfiguration; Enabling rapid remediation through automated configuration enforcement; Providing audit trails documenting who changed what and when; and Ensuring consistency across environments preventing works on my machine security gaps. Tools like Ansible, Puppet, Chef, and Terraform codify security configurations. CIS benchmarks provide validated baselines for common platforms. Configuration management integrates with vulnerability management - many scanner findings are misconfigurations that configuration management could prevent or automatically remediate.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-security-misconfiguration", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597325Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597347Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597347Z"}
{"id": "trtp-9b7a06bdea88", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Security Misconfiguration?", "output": "Security Misconfiguration: Security misconfigurations occur when systems, frameworks, applications, or cloud services are improperly configured, leaving default settings, unnecessary features enabled, excessive permissions, or missing security controls. This includes default credentials, verbose error messages, unnecessary services, permissive CORS, and cloud storage exposure.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Cloud security posture assessment\n- Baseline configuration compliance\n- Attack surface reduction\n- Hardening standard development", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-security-misconfiguration", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597325Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597359Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597359Z"}
{"id": "trtp-2cc2c4c4a851", "instruction": "What are best practices for Security Misconfiguration?", "output": "Best practices for Security Misconfiguration:\n\n1. Implement configuration baselines (CIS benchmarks)\n2. Automate configuration management\n3. Remove or disable unnecessary features\n4. Conduct regular configuration audits\n\nSecurity misconfigurations occur when systems, frameworks, applications, or cloud services are improperly configured, leaving default settings, unnecessary features enabled, excessive permissions, or missing security controls. This includes default credentials, verbose error messages, unnecessary services, permissive CORS, and cloud storage exposure.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-security-misconfiguration", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597325Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597376Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597376Z"}
{"id": "trtp-1c0f2eb6911f", "instruction": "What mistakes should you avoid with Security Misconfiguration?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Security Misconfiguration:\n\n- Copying development configurations to production\n- Default credentials on appliances and IoT\n- Verbose error handling exposing internals\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Implement configuration baselines (CIS benchmarks)\n- Automate configuration management\n- Remove or disable unnecessary features", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-security-misconfiguration", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597325Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597388Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597388Z"}
{"id": "trtp-c67a6dec50d9", "instruction": "What scenarios require Security Misconfiguration?", "output": "Use cases for Security Misconfiguration:\n\n- Cloud security posture assessment\n- Baseline configuration compliance\n- Attack surface reduction\n- Hardening standard development\n\nSecurity misconfigurations occur when systems, frameworks, applications, or cloud services are improperly configured, leaving default settings, unnecessary features enabled, excessive permissions, or missing security controls. This includes default credentials, verbose error messages, unnecessary services, permissive CORS, and cloud storage exposure.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-security-misconfiguration", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597325Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597403Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597403Z"}
{"id": "trtp-79c8beda4210", "instruction": "What are business logic vulnerabilities and why are they difficult to detect?", "output": "Business logic vulnerabilities are flaws in application design rather than implementation bugs - the code works as written but the logic allows abuse. Examples: applying discount codes multiple times, skipping payment steps in checkout workflows, manipulating prices via parameter tampering, exploiting race conditions in account transfers, or abusing referral systems for unlimited credits. They're difficult to detect because: automated scanners can't understand business intent; each application has unique logic; they often require multi-step exploitation; and they appear as legitimate transactions. Detection requires understanding intended business workflows and testing deviations: out-of-order steps, repeated operations, boundary values, negative scenarios, and concurrent requests. Manual security testing with business context is essential.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-business-logic-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597412Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597420Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597420Z"}
{"id": "trtp-842812822f50", "instruction": "How do race conditions manifest as vulnerabilities in web applications?", "output": "Race conditions occur when concurrent requests exploit timing gaps between check and use operations. Examples: Double-spending by submitting multiple payment requests before balance updates; Coupon reuse by redeeming simultaneously from multiple sessions; File upload overwrites by concurrent uploads to same path; Privilege escalation by registering during role assignment delays. Web applications are vulnerable because multiple requests process in parallel. Exploitation involves: identifying non-atomic operations, scripting rapid concurrent requests, and detecting inconsistent outcomes. Prevention requires: atomic operations (database transactions with appropriate isolation levels), optimistic locking with version checks, rate limiting to slow concurrent attempts, and idempotency keys preventing duplicate processing. Server-side serialization of critical operations eliminates timing gaps.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-business-logic-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597412Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597427Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597427Z"}
{"id": "trtp-e25f72c9d9a5", "instruction": "What testing approaches effectively discover business logic flaws?", "output": "Effective business logic testing requires: Threat modeling identifying assets, trust boundaries, and abuse scenarios; Workflow mapping documenting all steps, branches, and state transitions; Negative testing attempting steps out of order, skipping steps, repeating steps, and reversing flows; Boundary testing using minimum, maximum, and edge case values; Parameter manipulation modifying prices, quantities, IDs, and hidden fields; Privilege boundary testing accessing functions across user roles; Race condition testing using concurrent requests on sensitive operations; Multi-session testing using multiple accounts to find inter-user vulnerabilities; and Integration testing examining interactions between features. Testers need business context - understanding what the application should do - making business logic testing more manual and requiring domain expertise beyond technical security skills.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-business-logic-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597412Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597434Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597434Z"}
{"id": "trtp-e7cf6f40c737", "instruction": "Describe Business Logic Vulnerabilities for vulnerability management.", "output": "Business Logic Vulnerabilities: Business logic vulnerabilities arise from flaws in application workflow, validation, or business rules rather than technical implementation bugs. They allow attackers to abuse legitimate functionality in unintended ways, including price manipulation, workflow bypass, race conditions, abuse of feature interactions, and improper state management.\n\nKey use cases:\n- E-commerce security testing\n- Financial application assessment\n- Workflow validation review\n- Fraud prevention design", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-business-logic-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597412Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597446Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597446Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ce032bb1665b", "instruction": "What are the recommended approaches for Business Logic Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Best practices for Business Logic Vulnerabilities:\n\n1. Map and review all business workflows\n2. Implement server-side validation of all business rules\n3. Test negative and boundary cases\n4. Log business-critical operations for audit\n\nBusiness logic vulnerabilities arise from flaws in application workflow, validation, or business rules rather than technical implementation bugs. They allow attackers to abuse legitimate functionality in unintended ways, including price manipulation, workflow bypass, race conditions, abuse of feature interactions, and improper state management.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-business-logic-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597412Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597463Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597463Z"}
{"id": "trtp-635b67e09e17", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Business Logic Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Business Logic Vulnerabilities:\n\n- Trusting client-side business logic\n- Incomplete workflow validation\n- Missing rate limiting on sensitive operations\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Map and review all business workflows\n- Implement server-side validation of all business rules\n- Test negative and boundary cases", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-business-logic-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597412Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597487Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597487Z"}
{"id": "trtp-a6c54fc88d92", "instruction": "When should you use Business Logic Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Use cases for Business Logic Vulnerabilities:\n\n- E-commerce security testing\n- Financial application assessment\n- Workflow validation review\n- Fraud prevention design\n\nBusiness logic vulnerabilities arise from flaws in application workflow, validation, or business rules rather than technical implementation bugs. They allow attackers to abuse legitimate functionality in unintended ways, including price manipulation, workflow bypass, race conditions, abuse of feature interactions, and improper state management.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-vuln_classes-business-logic-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597412Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597499Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597499Z"}
{"id": "trtp-bb21d11c99b2", "instruction": "Why is CVSS score alone insufficient for vulnerability prioritization?", "output": "CVSS scores measure theoretical technical severity without considering organizational context. A CVSS 9.8 vulnerability on an isolated test server poses less actual risk than a CVSS 7.0 on an internet-facing payment system. CVSS lacks: asset context (business value, data sensitivity, connectivity); threat context (active exploitation, threat actor interest, exploit availability); environmental factors (compensating controls, network segmentation); and temporal factors (patch availability, mitigation options). Organizations see thousands of high/critical CVEs annually but only ~2-5% face active exploitation. Risk-based prioritization combines CVSS with these factors to identify the subset requiring immediate attention versus those that can be scheduled normally.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-risk-based-vulnerability-prioritization", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597511Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597520Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597520Z"}
{"id": "trtp-46e7bb4fd0d0", "instruction": "What factors should be combined for effective vulnerability risk scoring?", "output": "Effective risk scoring combines: Vulnerability factors including CVSS base score, exploit availability (public PoC, weaponized), and exploitation complexity; Threat factors including active exploitation (CISA KEV, threat intel), threat actor interest in the vulnerability class, and attack surface exposure (internet-facing, internal, air-gapped); Asset factors including business criticality, data sensitivity/regulatory requirements, system dependencies, and recovery difficulty; and Environmental factors including compensating controls (WAF, EDR, segmentation), detection capability, and incident response readiness. Weighting varies by organization - a healthcare provider might weight data sensitivity higher while a manufacturer weights OT system availability. The goal is consistent, defensible prioritization enabling finite resources to address greatest risks first.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-risk-based-vulnerability-prioritization", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597511Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597528Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597528Z"}
{"id": "trtp-234299d430bc", "instruction": "How do organizations operationalize risk-based vulnerability prioritization?", "output": "Operationalizing risk-based prioritization requires: establishing asset inventory with criticality ratings updated regularly; integrating threat intelligence feeds (KEV, vendor threat intel, dark web monitoring) into vulnerability management platforms; defining risk scoring algorithms combining vulnerability, threat, and asset factors; setting SLA tiers based on risk scores rather than raw severity; automating risk score calculation at scan ingestion; creating workflows routing high-risk findings to immediate response while lower-risk enters normal remediation queues; reporting risk reduction metrics rather than vulnerability counts; and regularly reviewing prioritization accuracy by analyzing which vulnerabilities led to incidents. Platforms like Tenable, Qualys, and specialized tools like Kenna Security/Cisco Vulnerability Management provide built-in risk scoring that organizations can customize.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-risk-based-vulnerability-prioritization", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597511Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597535Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597535Z"}
{"id": "trtp-422dbd7ec8b5", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Risk-Based Vulnerability Prioritization?", "output": "Risk-Based Vulnerability Prioritization: Risk-based vulnerability prioritization evaluates vulnerabilities based on actual business risk rather than solely technical severity. It combines vulnerability characteristics (CVSS, exploitability) with contextual factors (asset criticality, exposure, compensating controls, threat intelligence) to determine remediation priority and resource allocation.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Security team resource allocation\n- Executive risk reporting\n- SLA determination for remediation\n- Budget justification for remediation projects", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-risk-based-vulnerability-prioritization", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597511Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597551Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597551Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f221b1d9b484", "instruction": "What are best practices for Risk-Based Vulnerability Prioritization?", "output": "Best practices for Risk-Based Vulnerability Prioritization:\n\n1. Integrate threat intelligence into prioritization\n2. Maintain accurate asset criticality ratings\n3. Consider compensating controls in risk calculations\n4. Regularly recalibrate prioritization models\n\nRisk-based vulnerability prioritization evaluates vulnerabilities based on actual business risk rather than solely technical severity. It combines vulnerability characteristics (CVSS, exploitability) with contextual factors (asset criticality, exposure, compensating controls, threat intelligence) to determine remediation priority and resource allocation.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-risk-based-vulnerability-prioritization", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597511Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597564Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597564Z"}
{"id": "trtp-393ea280acf1", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Risk-Based Vulnerability Prioritization?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Risk-Based Vulnerability Prioritization:\n\n- Over-relying on CVSS alone\n- Static prioritization ignoring changing threats\n- Inconsistent asset criticality assessments\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Integrate threat intelligence into prioritization\n- Maintain accurate asset criticality ratings\n- Consider compensating controls in risk calculations", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-risk-based-vulnerability-prioritization", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597511Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597582Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597582Z"}
{"id": "trtp-eab6b97cbe24", "instruction": "What scenarios require Risk-Based Vulnerability Prioritization?", "output": "Use cases for Risk-Based Vulnerability Prioritization:\n\n- Security team resource allocation\n- Executive risk reporting\n- SLA determination for remediation\n- Budget justification for remediation projects\n\nRisk-based vulnerability prioritization evaluates vulnerabilities based on actual business risk rather than solely technical severity. It combines vulnerability characteristics (CVSS, exploitability) with contextual factors (asset criticality, exposure, compensating controls, threat intelligence) to determine remediation priority and resource allocation.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-risk-based-vulnerability-prioritization", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597511Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597594Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597594Z"}
{"id": "trtp-7c95eb9ce80f", "instruction": "What factors determine asset criticality for security prioritization?", "output": "Asset criticality factors include: Business impact considering revenue dependency, operational necessity, and customer-facing importance; Data sensitivity including PII, PHI, financial data, intellectual property, and regulatory classifications; Regulatory requirements such as PCI DSS scope, HIPAA covered systems, and SOX-relevant systems; System dependencies including authentication infrastructure, shared services, and management planes; Recovery difficulty based on RTO/RPO requirements, rebuild complexity, and data recoverability; and Exposure profile covering internet accessibility, third-party connections, and user access breadth. A domain controller might be critical due to authentication dependency even without sensitive data, while a database might be critical for its data content. Both perspectives matter for complete criticality assessment.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-asset-criticality-assessment", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597602Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597611Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597611Z"}
{"id": "trtp-37a626ac1097", "instruction": "How should organizations maintain and operationalize asset criticality ratings?", "output": "Maintaining asset criticality requires: Establishing a criticality framework with defined tiers (e.g., Critical, High, Medium, Low) and clear criteria for each; Integrating with CMDB/asset management so criticality is a maintained attribute; Involving business stakeholders who understand operational importance beyond IT perspective; Mapping data flows to identify systems processing sensitive data; Documenting dependencies showing impact chains when systems fail; Scheduling regular reviews (quarterly for critical assets, annually for others) to catch business changes; Automating discovery to identify new assets requiring classification; and Integrating criticality into security tools so vulnerability scanners, SIEM, and incident response platforms inherit ratings. Criticality should influence vulnerability SLAs, patching priority, security monitoring depth, and incident response escalation paths.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-asset-criticality-assessment", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597602Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597618Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597618Z"}
{"id": "trtp-744262080942", "instruction": "What mistakes do organizations make when assessing asset criticality?", "output": "Common mistakes include: IT-only assessment missing business context - infrastructure teams may underrate a legacy application critical to revenue; Static ratings that don't evolve with business changes like mergers, new products, or cloud migrations; Overlooking supporting infrastructure where management servers, jump hosts, and backup systems often get low ratings despite enabling attacks on critical systems; Ignoring data perspective by rating systems by function rather than data sensitivity; Missing dependencies where a medium-criticality middleware server connects all critical applications; Inconsistent methodology where different teams or regions apply different criteria; and No integration with security tools leaving criticality in spreadsheets rather than driving automated prioritization. Regular cross-functional review with IT, security, and business representatives prevents most of these issues.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-asset-criticality-assessment", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597602Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597625Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597625Z"}
{"id": "trtp-d382d0dd836f", "instruction": "Explain Asset Criticality Assessment in vulnerability management.", "output": "Asset Criticality Assessment: Asset criticality assessment evaluates and classifies organizational assets based on their importance to business operations, data sensitivity, regulatory requirements, and potential impact of compromise. This classification drives vulnerability prioritization, security investment, and incident response prioritization.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Vulnerability remediation prioritization\n- Security control implementation decisions\n- Incident response triage\n- Business continuity planning", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-asset-criticality-assessment", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597602Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597640Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597640Z"}
{"id": "trtp-57f4132f357f", "instruction": "What are the recommended approaches for Asset Criticality Assessment?", "output": "Best practices for Asset Criticality Assessment:\n\n1. Involve business stakeholders in criticality assessment\n2. Consider data classification and regulatory requirements\n3. Map dependencies between systems\n4. Review and update criticality ratings regularly\n\nAsset criticality assessment evaluates and classifies organizational assets based on their importance to business operations, data sensitivity, regulatory requirements, and potential impact of compromise. This classification drives vulnerability prioritization, security investment, and incident response prioritization.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-asset-criticality-assessment", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597602Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597653Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597653Z"}
{"id": "trtp-355c8b9cf610", "instruction": "What goes wrong with Asset Criticality Assessment?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Asset Criticality Assessment:\n\n- IT-centric assessment missing business context\n- Static ratings not reflecting business changes\n- Overlooking supporting infrastructure criticality\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Involve business stakeholders in criticality assessment\n- Consider data classification and regulatory requirements\n- Map dependencies between systems", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-asset-criticality-assessment", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597602Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597665Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597665Z"}
{"id": "trtp-9007373279e0", "instruction": "When should you use Asset Criticality Assessment?", "output": "Use cases for Asset Criticality Assessment:\n\n- Vulnerability remediation prioritization\n- Security control implementation decisions\n- Incident response triage\n- Business continuity planning\n\nAsset criticality assessment evaluates and classifies organizational assets based on their importance to business operations, data sensitivity, regulatory requirements, and potential impact of compromise. This classification drives vulnerability prioritization, security investment, and incident response prioritization.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-asset-criticality-assessment", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597602Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597677Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597677Z"}
{"id": "trtp-e587696f21c1", "instruction": "What types of compensating controls can mitigate vulnerabilities when patching isn't possible?", "output": "Compensating controls categories include: Network controls using segmentation, firewall rules blocking exploit traffic, removing internet exposure, and VPN requirements for access; Access controls involving service account restrictions, removing unnecessary user access, requiring MFA, and just-in-time privileged access; Application controls including WAF rules blocking exploit patterns, input validation at proxies, and disabling vulnerable features; Detection controls with IDS signatures, EDR rules, enhanced logging, and SIEM correlation; Endpoint controls like application whitelisting, exploit protection features (DEP, ASLR enforcement), and browser isolation; and Operational controls including heightened monitoring, incident response preparation, and user awareness. Effective mitigation often combines multiple control types to address different attack stages.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-compensating-controls-for-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597685Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597694Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597694Z"}
{"id": "trtp-cb78dda36dea", "instruction": "How do organizations evaluate whether compensating controls adequately reduce risk?", "output": "Evaluating compensating control adequacy requires: Understanding the attack vector specifically - does the control actually prevent or detect the exploitation method, not just related attacks; Assessing control strength considering whether the control can be easily bypassed or is it robust; Validating implementation to verify the control is properly deployed and functioning; Testing effectiveness through red team exercises or penetration testing attempting to exploit despite controls; Monitoring for control degradation using alerts if network changes bypass segmentation or if signatures are evaded; Documenting residual risk remaining after controls and ensuring business acceptance; and Setting expiration dates to ensure compensating controls don't become permanent excuses. Controls should address specific vulnerability exploitation requirements - a WAF rule blocking a specific SQL injection pattern provides more assurance than generic enhanced monitoring.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-compensating-controls-for-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597685Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597701Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597701Z"}
{"id": "trtp-78012e49a3a3", "instruction": "What documentation and governance should accompany compensating controls?", "output": "Compensating control governance requires: Formal exception process with business owner approval documenting why patching cannot occur, risk accepted, and control adequacy; Control specification detailing exactly what is implemented, where, and expected effectiveness; Expiration date setting firm deadline for remediation with automatic escalation if missed; Monitoring requirements specifying metrics proving control effectiveness and alerting on failure; Testing schedule validating controls continue working as intended; Risk reassessment triggers defining events requiring immediate review (new exploit techniques, control failures); Escalation path for when controls prove inadequate or risk changes; and Regular reporting to leadership on exception count, age, and remediation progress. PCI-DSS provides a useful framework - compensating controls must meet original requirement intent, provide similar defense, be above and beyond other requirements, and be commensurate with additional risk.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-compensating-controls-for-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597685Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597712Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597712Z"}
{"id": "trtp-338ef4d9ba97", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Compensating Controls for Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Compensating Controls for Vulnerabilities: Compensating controls are alternative security measures implemented when primary controls cannot be applied, such as when patches cannot be immediately deployed. They reduce exploitability or impact of vulnerabilities through network segmentation, access restrictions, monitoring, application controls, or other mitigations without directly remediating the underlying vulnerability.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Managing unpatchable legacy systems\n- Bridging gaps during patch testing periods\n- Protecting systems with operational constraints\n- Addressing zero-day vulnerabilities before patches", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-compensating-controls-for-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597685Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597725Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597725Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ef8aeea61b2b", "instruction": "What are best practices for Compensating Controls for Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Best practices for Compensating Controls for Vulnerabilities:\n\n1. Document all compensating controls with expiration dates\n2. Layer multiple compensating controls for defense-in-depth\n3. Monitor effectiveness of compensating controls\n4. Treat compensating controls as temporary\n\nCompensating controls are alternative security measures implemented when primary controls cannot be applied, such as when patches cannot be immediately deployed. They reduce exploitability or impact of vulnerabilities through network segmentation, access restrictions, monitoring, application controls, or other mitigations without directly remediating the underlying vulnerability.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-compensating-controls-for-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597685Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597741Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597741Z"}
{"id": "trtp-62cdc23a279a", "instruction": "What goes wrong with Compensating Controls for Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Compensating Controls for Vulnerabilities:\n\n- Compensating controls becoming permanent replacements\n- Insufficient monitoring of control effectiveness\n- Controls that don't actually address the attack vector\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Document all compensating controls with expiration dates\n- Layer multiple compensating controls for defense-in-depth\n- Monitor effectiveness of compensating controls", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-compensating-controls-for-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597685Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597754Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597754Z"}
{"id": "trtp-e8d20022dd32", "instruction": "When should you use Compensating Controls for Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Use cases for Compensating Controls for Vulnerabilities:\n\n- Managing unpatchable legacy systems\n- Bridging gaps during patch testing periods\n- Protecting systems with operational constraints\n- Addressing zero-day vulnerabilities before patches\n\nCompensating controls are alternative security measures implemented when primary controls cannot be applied, such as when patches cannot be immediately deployed. They reduce exploitability or impact of vulnerabilities through network segmentation, access restrictions, monitoring, application controls, or other mitigations without directly remediating the underlying vulnerability.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-compensating-controls-for-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597685Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597764Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597764Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ce1cb4a903e9", "instruction": "What is virtual patching and how does it differ from actual patching?", "output": "Virtual patching implements security rules at enforcement points (WAF, IPS, host-based agents) to block exploit traffic without modifying vulnerable software. When a vulnerability like Log4Shell emerges, a virtual patch blocks malicious JNDI lookup strings at the WAF while the actual Java dependency update occurs over weeks. Differences: virtual patches provide immediate protection but only address known exploit patterns; actual patches fix root causes but require testing and deployment time. Virtual patches protect the attack vector, not the vulnerability - they may be bypassed with novel exploitation techniques. They're valuable for: zero-day response before patches exist, legacy systems that cannot be patched, and bridging testing periods. They should be temporary measures, not permanent vulnerability acceptance.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-virtual-patching", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597773Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597781Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597781Z"}
{"id": "trtp-16f349ad185f", "instruction": "How do WAF-based virtual patches protect against web application vulnerabilities?", "output": "WAF virtual patches analyze HTTP traffic for exploit signatures before requests reach applications. For SQL injection, rules block queries containing malicious SQL syntax; for XSS, rules strip or block dangerous script patterns; for specific CVEs, rules match known exploit payloads. Implementation approaches: negative security rules blocking known-bad patterns, positive security rules only allowing known-good patterns, and protocol validation enforcing expected request structures. Effective WAF virtual patching requires: understanding the specific vulnerability and its exploitation method; creating precise signatures minimizing false positives; testing in monitor mode before blocking; monitoring for bypass attempts using encoding, fragmentation, or alternative exploitation; and updating signatures as new bypass techniques emerge. WAFs from Cloudflare, Akamai, Imperva, and AWS often release virtual patches within hours of major disclosures.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-virtual-patching", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597773Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597788Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597788Z"}
{"id": "trtp-2c11b968ae5c", "instruction": "What are the limitations and risks of relying on virtual patching?", "output": "Virtual patching limitations include: Bypass vulnerability since attackers continuously develop techniques to evade signatures through encoding variations, protocol manipulation, and novel exploit patterns; Incomplete coverage where complex vulnerabilities may have multiple exploitation paths not all covered by virtual patches; Performance impact from deep packet inspection and complex regex patterns affecting application latency; Maintenance burden requiring signature updates as bypass techniques evolve; False positives where aggressive rules may block legitimate traffic; Scope limitations since virtual patches protect specific enforcement points but not all attack paths (e.g., WAF doesn't protect internal API calls); and Organizational complacency where virtual patches reduce pressure to deploy real fixes. Virtual patching is a valuable temporary measure but organizations must track and prioritize actual remediation with clear timelines.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-virtual-patching", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597773Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597799Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597799Z"}
{"id": "trtp-c0cb70d1a2cd", "instruction": "What is Virtual Patching?", "output": "Virtual Patching: Virtual patching implements security controls at the network or application layer to block exploitation of vulnerabilities without modifying the vulnerable software itself. Common implementations include WAF rules, IPS signatures, and network filtering that detect and block exploit traffic patterns before reaching vulnerable systems.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Immediate protection for critical zero-day vulnerabilities\n- Protecting legacy systems that cannot be patched\n- Bridging gaps during patch testing cycles\n- Protecting third-party applications awaiting vendor patches", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-virtual-patching", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597773Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597811Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597811Z"}
{"id": "trtp-c988cfb62d33", "instruction": "What are the recommended approaches for Virtual Patching?", "output": "Best practices for Virtual Patching:\n\n1. Deploy virtual patches within hours of critical disclosures\n2. Test virtual patches for false positive impact\n3. Monitor for bypass attempts\n4. Remove virtual patches after actual patching\n\nVirtual patching implements security controls at the network or application layer to block exploitation of vulnerabilities without modifying the vulnerable software itself. Common implementations include WAF rules, IPS signatures, and network filtering that detect and block exploit traffic patterns before reaching vulnerable systems.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-virtual-patching", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597773Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597824Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597824Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f2bb6110762a", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Virtual Patching?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Virtual Patching:\n\n- Virtual patches becoming permanent substitutes for real patches\n- Incomplete coverage missing attack variations\n- Performance impact from complex signatures\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Deploy virtual patches within hours of critical disclosures\n- Test virtual patches for false positive impact\n- Monitor for bypass attempts", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-virtual-patching", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597773Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597836Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597836Z"}
{"id": "trtp-488073045d89", "instruction": "What are the use cases for Virtual Patching?", "output": "Use cases for Virtual Patching:\n\n- Immediate protection for critical zero-day vulnerabilities\n- Protecting legacy systems that cannot be patched\n- Bridging gaps during patch testing cycles\n- Protecting third-party applications awaiting vendor patches\n\nVirtual patching implements security controls at the network or application layer to block exploitation of vulnerabilities without modifying the vulnerable software itself. Common implementations include WAF rules, IPS signatures, and network filtering that detect and block exploit traffic patterns before reaching vulnerable systems.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-virtual-patching", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597773Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597847Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597847Z"}
{"id": "trtp-0b1d685f1d7f", "instruction": "How should organizations define vulnerability remediation SLA timeframes?", "output": "Remediation SLAs should reflect actual risk and operational capability. Common frameworks: Critical risk (actively exploited, internet-facing critical systems) within 24-72 hours using emergency patching or immediate compensating controls; High risk (exploitable, significant business impact) within 7-14 days through priority remediation queue; Medium risk (potential impact, limited exposure) within 30-60 days through normal patching cycles; Low risk (minimal impact or difficult exploitation) within 90 days or next maintenance window. SLAs should be based on risk scores combining severity, exploitability, and asset context rather than raw CVSS. Organizations must calibrate SLAs to their patching capability - unrealistic SLAs breed exceptions. Start with achievable targets and tighten as maturity increases.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-vulnerability-remediation-slas", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597855Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597869Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597869Z"}
{"id": "trtp-95f9e2968f3d", "instruction": "What processes ensure SLA compliance and handle exceptions?", "output": "SLA compliance requires: Automated tracking integrated into vulnerability management platforms calculating SLA status from discovery date and risk level; Dashboard visibility showing open vulnerabilities by SLA status (within SLA, approaching deadline, past due); Escalation automation notifying system owners approaching deadlines and escalating overdue items to management; Exception process with formal request, business justification, compensating controls, and risk acceptance at appropriate level; Regular review meetings examining past-due items, exception trends, and systemic blockers; Metric reporting to leadership on SLA compliance rates and trends; and Consequences for chronic non-compliance through inclusion in performance reviews and risk discussions with business units. The goal is accountability without punitive culture that drives exception abuse.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-vulnerability-remediation-slas", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597855Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597876Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597876Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f9ce3cf1fa87", "instruction": "How do remediation SLAs integrate with change management and release cycles?", "output": "SLA and change management integration requires: Alignment of SLA tiers with change windows where critical SLAs should invoke emergency change procedures, high SLAs fit weekly change windows, and medium/low align with monthly or quarterly releases; Pre-approved change types for security patches reducing CAB overhead for routine remediations; Testing requirements proportional to risk where critical items may have abbreviated testing to meet SLAs while routine patches follow full testing; Release coordination bundling security updates with functional releases when SLAs allow; Deployment automation reducing manual effort enabling faster remediation; and Rollback planning preparing recovery procedures enabling faster deployment with confidence. Organizations often struggle when SLAs and change management aren't aligned - monthly change windows cannot satisfy 7-day SLAs. Executive alignment on security change priorities is essential.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-vulnerability-remediation-slas", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597855Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597883Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597883Z"}
{"id": "trtp-752eee5e0c37", "instruction": "Explain Vulnerability Remediation SLAs in vulnerability management.", "output": "Vulnerability Remediation SLAs: Remediation SLAs define timeframes within which vulnerabilities must be addressed based on risk level. They translate risk prioritization into operational accountability, typically specifying different windows for critical, high, medium, and low risk findings, with escalation procedures for exceptions.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Operational remediation planning\n- Performance measurement and accountability\n- Resource allocation decisions\n- Compliance demonstration", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-vulnerability-remediation-slas", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597855Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597896Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597896Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f093d0a3b8e0", "instruction": "What are best practices for Vulnerability Remediation SLAs?", "output": "Best practices for Vulnerability Remediation SLAs:\n\n1. Base SLAs on risk, not just CVSS severity\n2. Include escalation paths for exceptions\n3. Track SLA compliance as key metric\n4. Adjust SLAs based on demonstrated capability\n\nRemediation SLAs define timeframes within which vulnerabilities must be addressed based on risk level. They translate risk prioritization into operational accountability, typically specifying different windows for critical, high, medium, and low risk findings, with escalation procedures for exceptions.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-vulnerability-remediation-slas", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597855Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597908Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597908Z"}
{"id": "trtp-93ac3ed8272f", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Vulnerability Remediation SLAs?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Vulnerability Remediation SLAs:\n\n- Unrealistic SLAs breeding exception culture\n- SLAs based solely on scanner severity\n- No accountability for SLA violations\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Base SLAs on risk, not just CVSS severity\n- Include escalation paths for exceptions\n- Track SLA compliance as key metric", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-vulnerability-remediation-slas", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597855Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597920Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597920Z"}
{"id": "trtp-7111cec5cf3f", "instruction": "What scenarios require Vulnerability Remediation SLAs?", "output": "Use cases for Vulnerability Remediation SLAs:\n\n- Operational remediation planning\n- Performance measurement and accountability\n- Resource allocation decisions\n- Compliance demonstration\n\nRemediation SLAs define timeframes within which vulnerabilities must be addressed based on risk level. They translate risk prioritization into operational accountability, typically specifying different windows for critical, high, medium, and low risk findings, with escalation procedures for exceptions.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-vulnerability-remediation-slas", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597855Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597930Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597930Z"}
{"id": "trtp-2441614e20d3", "instruction": "What should a vulnerability exception request include?", "output": "Exception requests should document: Vulnerability identification including CVE, asset, and current risk score; Business justification explaining why patching cannot occur (technical limitation, vendor dependency, operational constraint, cost-benefit); Risk assessment detailing potential impact if exploited and likelihood based on exposure and threat landscape; Compensating controls specifying what mitigations reduce risk (network restrictions, monitoring, access controls); Residual risk remaining after compensating controls with explicit statement of risk being accepted; Requested duration with specific end date and trigger for earlier remediation; Remediation plan outlining path to eventual remediation if possible; and Approval authority appropriate to risk level (team lead for low risk, CISO for critical). This documentation enables informed risk decisions and provides audit trail.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-vulnerability-exception-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597939Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597951Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597951Z"}
{"id": "trtp-b04dc5b70de3", "instruction": "How should exception approval authority be structured?", "output": "Exception approval should escalate with risk: Low risk exceptions may be approved by system owners or IT management with security team notification; Medium risk requires security team review and business unit leadership approval; High risk requires CISO or security leadership approval with business executive sign-off; Critical risk requires executive leadership (CIO/CISO) or risk committee approval. Approval authority should never be the requesting party alone - separation ensures independent risk evaluation. Mass exceptions (affecting many assets or long durations) should require higher approval regardless of individual risk. Time-limited emergency exceptions during incidents may have expedited approval with mandatory post-incident review. Document approval chain and ensure approvers understand they are accepting risk on behalf of the organization.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-vulnerability-exception-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597939Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597958Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597958Z"}
{"id": "trtp-8e3f41b75ffa", "instruction": "What governance prevents exception abuse and ensures exceptions are truly temporary?", "output": "Preventing exception abuse requires: Expiration enforcement where exceptions automatically expire and vulnerabilities return to active remediation queue without renewal; Renewal burden requiring full re-justification (not just rubber-stamp extension) with updated risk assessment; Aggregate visibility through dashboards showing total exceptions, age distribution, and risk concentration enabling leadership to see cumulative accepted risk; Trend monitoring tracking exception rates and flagging increasing reliance on exceptions; Root cause analysis investigating why exceptions are needed and addressing systemic issues (underfunded patching, legacy dependencies); Periodic audits reviewing sample exceptions for appropriate justification and compensating control verification; Escalation for long-running exceptions requiring higher approval authority for each renewal; and Incentive alignment making exception counts part of team metrics and performance discussions.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-vulnerability-exception-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597939Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597965Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597965Z"}
{"id": "trtp-9b4ba2a84716", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Vulnerability Exception Management?", "output": "Vulnerability Exception Management: Exception management handles vulnerabilities that cannot be remediated within standard SLAs due to technical constraints, business requirements, or acceptable risk determinations. It includes formal processes for requesting, approving, documenting, and periodically reviewing exceptions with appropriate compensating controls and risk acceptance.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Legacy system vulnerability acceptance\n- Third-party software awaiting vendor patches\n- Operational systems with change constraints\n- Low-risk vulnerabilities not worth remediation cost", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-vulnerability-exception-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597939Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598057Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598057Z"}
{"id": "trtp-1364ae9939b3", "instruction": "What are the recommended approaches for Vulnerability Exception Management?", "output": "Best practices for Vulnerability Exception Management:\n\n1. Require compensating controls for all exceptions\n2. Set expiration dates requiring renewal\n3. Track exceptions as accepted risk inventory\n4. Escalate approval based on risk level\n\nException management handles vulnerabilities that cannot be remediated within standard SLAs due to technical constraints, business requirements, or acceptable risk determinations. It includes formal processes for requesting, approving, documenting, and periodically reviewing exceptions with appropriate compensating controls and risk acceptance.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-vulnerability-exception-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597939Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598073Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598073Z"}
{"id": "trtp-3a7f331333c4", "instruction": "What goes wrong with Vulnerability Exception Management?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Vulnerability Exception Management:\n\n- Rubber-stamp exception approvals\n- Exceptions without expiration becoming permanent\n- No tracking of cumulative exception risk\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Require compensating controls for all exceptions\n- Set expiration dates requiring renewal\n- Track exceptions as accepted risk inventory", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-vulnerability-exception-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597939Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598090Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598090Z"}
{"id": "trtp-081f0a42181d", "instruction": "What are the use cases for Vulnerability Exception Management?", "output": "Use cases for Vulnerability Exception Management:\n\n- Legacy system vulnerability acceptance\n- Third-party software awaiting vendor patches\n- Operational systems with change constraints\n- Low-risk vulnerabilities not worth remediation cost\n\nException management handles vulnerabilities that cannot be remediated within standard SLAs due to technical constraints, business requirements, or acceptable risk determinations. It includes formal processes for requesting, approving, documenting, and periodically reviewing exceptions with appropriate compensating controls and risk acceptance.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-prioritization-vulnerability-exception-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.597939Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598104Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598104Z"}
{"id": "trtp-a8cb6ed3e03e", "instruction": "What are the most important vulnerability management metrics to track?", "output": "Essential VM metrics include: Mean Time to Remediate (MTTR) measuring average days from vulnerability discovery to remediation, segmented by severity; Scan Coverage as percentage of assets regularly scanned showing visibility gaps; SLA Compliance Rate measuring percentage of vulnerabilities remediated within defined timeframes; Vulnerability Density measuring vulnerabilities per asset or per 1000 lines of code enabling comparison across systems; Risk Score Trend tracking aggregate organizational risk over time; Open Vulnerability Age Distribution showing backlog age (30/60/90 days); Exception Rate measuring percentage of vulnerabilities with active exceptions indicating remediation capability; and Recurrence Rate measuring vulnerabilities that reappear after remediation indicating root cause issues. Select 5-7 core metrics aligned with program goals rather than tracking everything possible.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-core-vulnerability-management-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598116Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598125Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598125Z"}
{"id": "trtp-9cc7a96ed65c", "instruction": "How should Mean Time to Remediate (MTTR) be calculated and interpreted?", "output": "MTTR measures days from vulnerability discovery to confirmed remediation. Calculation: sum of (remediation date - discovery date) for all remediated vulnerabilities, divided by count. Important considerations: segment MTTR by severity/risk level since critical and low findings shouldn't be averaged together; segment by asset type/business unit to identify struggling teams; exclude exceptions/accepted risks from MTTR as they represent different decisions; use median alongside mean since outliers can skew averages significantly. Interpretation: compare against SLA targets (if MTTR exceeds SLA, compliance is mathematically impossible); trend over time matters more than absolute value; investigate spikes indicating process breakdowns; and benchmark against industry peers. Typical enterprise MTTR ranges: critical 15-30 days, high 30-60 days, medium 60-90 days.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-core-vulnerability-management-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598116Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598132Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598132Z"}
{"id": "trtp-3b5cc77ae121", "instruction": "What metrics indicate vulnerability management program maturity?", "output": "Maturity indicators include: Leading vs lagging focus where mature programs track vulnerability introduction rate and time-to-discovery alongside remediation; Automation level measuring percentage of vulnerabilities remediated through automated patching; Coverage completeness including authenticated scan rates, agent deployment coverage, and application security testing integration; Risk-based metrics where mature programs measure risk reduction rather than vulnerability counts; Predictability with consistent MTTR and SLA compliance indicating stable processes; Developer integration measuring vulnerabilities found and fixed in development versus production; Exception management with low exception rates, short exception durations, and declining exception requests; and Proactive identification through vulnerability discovery before external reporting (through threat intelligence, red team). Immature programs show high MTTR variance, poor coverage, count-focused metrics, and high exception rates.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-core-vulnerability-management-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598116Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598139Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598139Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ee1b3c9bb93a", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Core Vulnerability Management Metrics?", "output": "Core Vulnerability Management Metrics: Core VM metrics quantify program effectiveness through measurements like mean time to remediate (MTTR), scan coverage, vulnerability density, SLA compliance rates, and risk reduction over time. These metrics enable performance tracking, resource justification, and continuous improvement.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Program performance measurement\n- Executive reporting and dashboards\n- Resource allocation decisions\n- Identifying process improvement opportunities", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-core-vulnerability-management-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598116Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598152Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598152Z"}
{"id": "trtp-595f8017e4cd", "instruction": "How should organizations implement Core Vulnerability Management Metrics?", "output": "Best practices for Core Vulnerability Management Metrics:\n\n1. Track trends over time, not just point-in-time values\n2. Segment metrics by asset criticality and business unit\n3. Benchmark against industry standards\n4. Balance quantity metrics with quality/risk metrics\n\nCore VM metrics quantify program effectiveness through measurements like mean time to remediate (MTTR), scan coverage, vulnerability density, SLA compliance rates, and risk reduction over time. These metrics enable performance tracking, resource justification, and continuous improvement.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-core-vulnerability-management-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598116Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598165Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598165Z"}
{"id": "trtp-953539da39d9", "instruction": "What goes wrong with Core Vulnerability Management Metrics?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Core Vulnerability Management Metrics:\n\n- Vanity metrics that don't reflect actual risk\n- Metrics that incentivize gaming behavior\n- Too many metrics diluting focus\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Track trends over time, not just point-in-time values\n- Segment metrics by asset criticality and business unit\n- Benchmark against industry standards", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-core-vulnerability-management-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598116Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598177Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598177Z"}
{"id": "trtp-4972f1a7f04a", "instruction": "What are the use cases for Core Vulnerability Management Metrics?", "output": "Use cases for Core Vulnerability Management Metrics:\n\n- Program performance measurement\n- Executive reporting and dashboards\n- Resource allocation decisions\n- Identifying process improvement opportunities\n\nCore VM metrics quantify program effectiveness through measurements like mean time to remediate (MTTR), scan coverage, vulnerability density, SLA compliance rates, and risk reduction over time. These metrics enable performance tracking, resource justification, and continuous improvement.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-core-vulnerability-management-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598116Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598192Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598192Z"}
{"id": "trtp-bc3a667f448a", "instruction": "How do organizations translate vulnerability counts into risk metrics?", "output": "Translating to risk requires: Asset-weighted scoring where vulnerability severity is multiplied by asset criticality so a medium vulnerability on a critical asset scores higher than a high vulnerability on a low-value asset; Exploitability adjustment weighting vulnerabilities with available exploits or active exploitation higher than theoretical risks; Exposure consideration scoring internet-facing vulnerabilities higher than internal-only; Control effectiveness factoring compensating controls that reduce exploitability or impact; Aggregation methods calculating organizational risk scores by summing asset-level risks or using more sophisticated models; and Normalization enabling comparison across business units of different sizes using risk density metrics. Commercial platforms (Kenna, Tenable Lumin) provide algorithms, or organizations can build custom models aligned with their risk framework.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-risk-based-vulnerability-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598201Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598209Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598209Z"}
{"id": "trtp-fd4bcce693ec", "instruction": "What is cyber risk quantification and how does it apply to vulnerability management?", "output": "Cyber risk quantification (CRQ) translates security metrics into financial terms business leaders understand. For vulnerability management, this means estimating: Probability of exploitation based on vulnerability characteristics, exposure, and threat landscape; Potential impact in financial terms including business disruption, data breach costs, regulatory fines, and reputation damage; Risk reduction value showing financial risk reduced by remediation; and ROI of security investments comparing remediation costs against risk reduction. FAIR (Factor Analysis of Information Risk) is a common framework. Application: a critical vulnerability on a payment system might represent $5M annual loss exposure, making expedited remediation clearly worthwhile, while a similar vulnerability on an internal tool might represent $50K exposure, appropriate for normal remediation cycles. CRQ enables prioritization discussions in business terms.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-risk-based-vulnerability-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598201Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598216Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598216Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ee40e4b3c07b", "instruction": "How should risk metrics be presented to executive and board audiences?", "output": "Executive risk communication should: Use business language with risk scores, financial exposure, and trend indicators rather than vulnerability counts or technical severity; Provide context through comparison against risk appetite, peer benchmarks, and historical trends; Highlight actions taken and planned demonstrating program effectiveness and resource needs; Focus on material risks covering vulnerabilities that could significantly impact business; Use visualization with clear dashboards showing risk trends, top risks, and program performance; Avoid jargon ensuring non-technical executives understand implications; Connect to business objectives showing how vulnerability management protects revenue, reputation, and operations; and Be actionable with clear requests (resources, decisions, awareness). Format: 1-2 page executive summary, supporting dashboards, and detailed appendix for those wanting depth. Frequency: quarterly board updates, monthly executive dashboards.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-risk-based-vulnerability-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598201Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598223Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598223Z"}
{"id": "trtp-49e02cb9ede0", "instruction": "What is Risk-Based Vulnerability Metrics?", "output": "Risk-Based Vulnerability Metrics: Risk-based metrics translate vulnerability counts into business risk measurements by incorporating asset criticality, threat context, and exploitability factors. They enable meaningful communication with business stakeholders and ensure remediation efforts align with actual risk reduction rather than vulnerability volume.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Executive and board reporting\n- Risk appetite alignment\n- Remediation prioritization validation\n- Security investment justification", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-risk-based-vulnerability-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598201Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598236Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598236Z"}
{"id": "trtp-bb3ede296be5", "instruction": "What are best practices for Risk-Based Vulnerability Metrics?", "output": "Best practices for Risk-Based Vulnerability Metrics:\n\n1. Correlate risk metrics with asset value\n2. Incorporate threat intelligence into risk calculations\n3. Track risk reduction, not just vulnerability closure\n4. Align risk metrics with enterprise risk framework\n\nRisk-based metrics translate vulnerability counts into business risk measurements by incorporating asset criticality, threat context, and exploitability factors. They enable meaningful communication with business stakeholders and ensure remediation efforts align with actual risk reduction rather than vulnerability volume.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-risk-based-vulnerability-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598201Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598249Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598249Z"}
{"id": "trtp-c050d95ab845", "instruction": "What goes wrong with Risk-Based Vulnerability Metrics?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Risk-Based Vulnerability Metrics:\n\n- Opaque risk scores without explainability\n- Risk scores not actionable for technical teams\n- Disconnection from business risk appetite\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Correlate risk metrics with asset value\n- Incorporate threat intelligence into risk calculations\n- Track risk reduction, not just vulnerability closure", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-risk-based-vulnerability-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598201Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598264Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598264Z"}
{"id": "trtp-45b1608e0e32", "instruction": "When should you use Risk-Based Vulnerability Metrics?", "output": "Use cases for Risk-Based Vulnerability Metrics:\n\n- Executive and board reporting\n- Risk appetite alignment\n- Remediation prioritization validation\n- Security investment justification\n\nRisk-based metrics translate vulnerability counts into business risk measurements by incorporating asset criticality, threat context, and exploitability factors. They enable meaningful communication with business stakeholders and ensure remediation efforts align with actual risk reduction rather than vulnerability volume.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-risk-based-vulnerability-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598201Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598276Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598276Z"}
{"id": "trtp-09108de111de", "instruction": "What operational metrics help identify vulnerability management process bottlenecks?", "output": "Bottleneck identification metrics include: Stage duration measuring time spent in each workflow stage (triage, assignment, scheduling, testing, deployment, verification) to identify slowest steps; Queue depth tracking vulnerability counts waiting at each stage to show backup points; First-touch time measuring days from discovery to initial triage/assignment; Assignment-to-work time measuring days from assignment until remediation begins; Testing duration for patch validation time; Deployment success rate measuring failed deployments requiring rework; Escalation rate tracking how often issues escalate due to process failures; and Reopen rate measuring vulnerabilities reopened after premature closure. Analyze metrics by team, asset type, and vulnerability type to identify patterns. Common bottlenecks: triage delays, change management approval queues, testing resource constraints, and deployment scheduling.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-operational-vulnerability-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598284Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598292Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598292Z"}
{"id": "trtp-51f35ab3f1f6", "instruction": "How should scanning program effectiveness be measured?", "output": "Scanning effectiveness metrics include: Coverage rate measuring percentage of assets scanned within defined periods by asset type; Authenticated scan rate showing percentage of scans using credentials for full visibility; Scan completion rate tracking percentage of scans completing successfully versus failing or timing out; False positive rate measuring findings confirmed as not actual vulnerabilities wasting remediation effort; Discovery effectiveness comparing scanner findings against manual penetration tests or bug bounty; Plugin/signature currency measuring how current scan definitions are against latest vulnerability releases; Scan frequency variance checking if critical assets are scanned more frequently as intended; and Data quality metrics including completeness of asset attribution, accuracy of severity ratings, and duplicate detection. Low authenticated scan rates indicate credential management issues; high false positive rates suggest tuning needs or scanner limitations.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-operational-vulnerability-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598284Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598299Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598299Z"}
{"id": "trtp-fc564021f807", "instruction": "What metrics help optimize vulnerability remediation team productivity?", "output": "Team productivity metrics include: Remediation velocity measuring vulnerabilities remediated per time period per team member; Backlog per analyst tracking workload distribution; SLA achievement rate by team comparing performance across teams; Automation rate measuring percentage of remediations handled through automated patching versus manual intervention; Collaboration metrics tracking handoffs between security and IT teams; Time allocation tracking triage, coordination, and verification time versus actual remediation; Rework rate measuring remediations requiring additional effort due to incomplete fixes; and Knowledge base contribution tracking documentation of solutions for recurring issues. Use carefully to avoid incentivizing volume over quality. Combine with quality metrics like fix verification rate and recurrence rate. Cross-team comparison helps identify training needs and best practices to share.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-operational-vulnerability-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598284Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598306Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598306Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f3609f48b4d2", "instruction": "What is Operational Vulnerability Metrics?", "output": "Operational Vulnerability Metrics: Operational metrics track the efficiency and effectiveness of vulnerability management processes including scan execution, remediation workflows, team productivity, and process bottlenecks. They enable program managers to optimize operations and identify improvement opportunities.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Process optimization\n- Team capacity planning\n- Workflow bottleneck identification\n- Tool effectiveness evaluation", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-operational-vulnerability-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598284Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598318Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598318Z"}
{"id": "trtp-1078b042dd28", "instruction": "What are best practices for Operational Vulnerability Metrics?", "output": "Best practices for Operational Vulnerability Metrics:\n\n1. Track end-to-end remediation workflow\n2. Identify and measure bottleneck stages\n3. Monitor automation effectiveness\n4. Compare across teams for best practice sharing\n\nOperational metrics track the efficiency and effectiveness of vulnerability management processes including scan execution, remediation workflows, team productivity, and process bottlenecks. They enable program managers to optimize operations and identify improvement opportunities.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-operational-vulnerability-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598284Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598330Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598330Z"}
{"id": "trtp-b6b9db26b083", "instruction": "What mistakes should you avoid with Operational Vulnerability Metrics?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Operational Vulnerability Metrics:\n\n- Metrics driving counterproductive behavior\n- Measuring activity instead of outcomes\n- Ignoring quality in pursuit of velocity\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Track end-to-end remediation workflow\n- Identify and measure bottleneck stages\n- Monitor automation effectiveness", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-operational-vulnerability-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598284Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598342Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598342Z"}
{"id": "trtp-854119888312", "instruction": "What are the use cases for Operational Vulnerability Metrics?", "output": "Use cases for Operational Vulnerability Metrics:\n\n- Process optimization\n- Team capacity planning\n- Workflow bottleneck identification\n- Tool effectiveness evaluation\n\nOperational metrics track the efficiency and effectiveness of vulnerability management processes including scan execution, remediation workflows, team productivity, and process bottlenecks. They enable program managers to optimize operations and identify improvement opportunities.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-operational-vulnerability-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598284Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598360Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598360Z"}
{"id": "trtp-025e7d81ffab", "instruction": "What vulnerability management metrics do common compliance frameworks require?", "output": "Framework-specific requirements: PCI-DSS requires quarterly external vulnerability scans by ASV, internal scans after significant changes, and remediation of high/critical vulnerabilities within defined timeframes; HIPAA requires periodic technical vulnerability assessment though specifics aren't prescribed; SOC 2 requires regular vulnerability assessments and evidence of timely remediation; FedRAMP requires monthly operating system and database scans, annual web application assessments, and high remediation within 30 days; NIST CSF expects identification, assessment, and remediation processes aligned with risk. Common metrics: scan frequency and coverage evidence, vulnerability counts by severity over time, remediation timeframes, and exception documentation. Key: map specific control requirements to metrics and ensure consistent evidence collection demonstrating ongoing compliance rather than point-in-time achievement.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-compliance-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598369Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598377Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598377Z"}
{"id": "trtp-6a47d071abbd", "instruction": "How should organizations prepare vulnerability management evidence for audits?", "output": "Audit preparation involves: Control mapping documenting which VM activities satisfy each audit requirement; Evidence inventory listing reports, logs, and records demonstrating each control; Retention policy ensuring historical data retention for audit lookback periods; Automated collection using VM platforms to generate required reports automatically; Consistent formatting producing audit-ready reports rather than raw data; Gap identification running pre-audit self-assessments to identify and remediate issues; Documentation currency ensuring policies, procedures, and diagrams reflect actual practice; Exception documentation maintaining complete records of accepted risks with approvals; and Interview preparation having team members ready to explain processes and demonstrate system capabilities. Best practice: maintain continuous compliance documentation rather than scrambling before audits. Most VM platforms provide compliance-specific reporting templates.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-compliance-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598369Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598385Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598385Z"}
{"id": "trtp-7cce75cba5d6", "instruction": "What is the relationship between compliance metrics and actual security risk?", "output": "Compliance and security often diverge: Scope limitations where compliance may only cover specific systems (PCI cardholder data environment) while attackers target any weakness; Minimum standards since compliance represents floor requirements, not comprehensive security; Point-in-time focus where audits verify periodic compliance but vulnerabilities exist continuously; Checkbox mentality where meeting literal requirements may not address actual risk; Lagging standards as compliance frameworks update slowly while threats evolve rapidly; and Compliance-driven prioritization potentially fixing audit findings over more critical risks. Balance by: using compliance as baseline while building risk-based program exceeding minimums; reporting both compliance status and risk metrics to different audiences; and ensuring compliance activities don't consume resources needed for actual risk reduction. Compliance provides structure and accountability but shouldn't be confused with security.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-compliance-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598369Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598392Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598392Z"}
{"id": "trtp-0e9d214390d8", "instruction": "What is Vulnerability Compliance Metrics?", "output": "Vulnerability Compliance Metrics: Compliance metrics demonstrate adherence to regulatory requirements, industry standards, and internal policies related to vulnerability management. They support audit evidence collection, compliance reporting, and identification of gaps requiring remediation to maintain certification or regulatory standing.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Regulatory audit preparation (PCI-DSS, HIPAA)\n- Customer security questionnaire responses\n- Insurance underwriting support\n- Internal policy compliance verification", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-compliance-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598369Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598404Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598404Z"}
{"id": "trtp-85b2d32262c0", "instruction": "What are best practices for Vulnerability Compliance Metrics?", "output": "Best practices for Vulnerability Compliance Metrics:\n\n1. Map metrics directly to compliance requirements\n2. Automate evidence collection\n3. Maintain historical records for audit\n4. Track compliance continuously, not just before audits\n\nCompliance metrics demonstrate adherence to regulatory requirements, industry standards, and internal policies related to vulnerability management. They support audit evidence collection, compliance reporting, and identification of gaps requiring remediation to maintain certification or regulatory standing.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-compliance-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598369Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598420Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598420Z"}
{"id": "trtp-9605b20186aa", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Vulnerability Compliance Metrics?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Vulnerability Compliance Metrics:\n\n- Compliance-focused metrics missing actual risk\n- Point-in-time compliance checks missing continuous gaps\n- Inconsistent evidence collection across audits\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Map metrics directly to compliance requirements\n- Automate evidence collection\n- Maintain historical records for audit", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-compliance-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598369Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598433Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598433Z"}
{"id": "trtp-4abc57ba44da", "instruction": "What scenarios require Vulnerability Compliance Metrics?", "output": "Use cases for Vulnerability Compliance Metrics:\n\n- Regulatory audit preparation (PCI-DSS, HIPAA)\n- Customer security questionnaire responses\n- Insurance underwriting support\n- Internal policy compliance verification\n\nCompliance metrics demonstrate adherence to regulatory requirements, industry standards, and internal policies related to vulnerability management. They support audit evidence collection, compliance reporting, and identification of gaps requiring remediation to maintain certification or regulatory standing.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-compliance-metrics", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598369Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598444Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598444Z"}
{"id": "trtp-fbaedb65c1dd", "instruction": "What are the essential components of a vulnerability management dashboard?", "output": "Essential dashboard components: Risk summary showing aggregate risk score with trend indicator; Vulnerability distribution by severity/risk level enabling quick understanding of landscape; SLA compliance rates with visual indicators (red/yellow/green) for at-risk items; Top vulnerabilities listing highest-risk findings requiring attention; Trend charts showing vulnerability counts and risk over time; Coverage metrics displaying scan completion rates and gaps; Remediation velocity showing closure rates and backlog trends; Exception summary counting active exceptions and pending expirations; Asset view segmenting vulnerabilities by business unit, environment, or asset type; and Aging analysis showing vulnerability age distribution. Design principles: most critical information visible without scrolling, drill-down capability for details, clear action items, and appropriate refresh frequency (real-time for operations, daily for management).", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-reporting-and-dashboards", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598453Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598461Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598461Z"}
{"id": "trtp-a5e3bb0321b0", "instruction": "How should vulnerability reports be structured for different audiences?", "output": "Audience-specific reporting: Executive/Board reports should use risk-focused summaries, business impact language, trend analysis, peer benchmarks, key decisions needed, and 1-2 pages with supporting appendix; Security Leadership reports should include program metrics, SLA compliance, exception status, resource needs, and risk hot spots requiring attention; IT Operations reports should focus on actionable remediation lists, prioritized by risk and SLA, with technical details and remediation guidance; System Owners reports should cover asset-specific vulnerabilities with clear ownership, SLA status, and escalation warnings; Compliance/Audit reports should provide framework-specific evidence, control coverage, and historical compliance demonstration. All reports should include: clear timeframe, consistent metrics, comparison to targets/baselines, and next steps. Automate generation to ensure consistency and reduce manual effort.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-reporting-and-dashboards", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598453Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598468Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598468Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f70df7ad459e", "instruction": "What visualization techniques effectively communicate vulnerability data?", "output": "Effective visualizations: Heat maps showing vulnerability concentration by business unit, asset type, or geography; Trend lines tracking metrics over time with appropriate baselines; Funnel charts showing vulnerability lifecycle stages and drop-off points; Scatter plots correlating asset criticality with vulnerability count to identify high-risk combinations; Aging histograms showing vulnerability age distribution; Donut/pie charts for severity or risk distribution (limit categories); Gantt-style timelines showing SLA countdown for priority items; Sparklines embedded in tables for compact trend display; and Traffic light indicators for quick status communication. Design principles: use color meaningfully (red for action needed, not decoration), avoid 3D effects that distort data, provide context (targets, baselines, trends), ensure accessibility (colorblind-friendly palettes), and support drill-down from visualization to underlying data.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-reporting-and-dashboards", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598453Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598489Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598489Z"}
{"id": "trtp-5c3a709ed0df", "instruction": "Describe Vulnerability Reporting and Dashboards for vulnerability management.", "output": "Vulnerability Reporting and Dashboards: Vulnerability reporting and dashboards present vulnerability data through visualizations, summaries, and detailed reports tailored to different audiences. Effective reporting translates technical findings into actionable intelligence for executives, operational teams, and compliance stakeholders.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Executive risk communication\n- Operational team task management\n- Trend analysis and program improvement\n- Stakeholder accountability and transparency", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-reporting-and-dashboards", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598453Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598502Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598502Z"}
{"id": "trtp-31a5c25d9797", "instruction": "What are the recommended approaches for Vulnerability Reporting and Dashboards?", "output": "Best practices for Vulnerability Reporting and Dashboards:\n\n1. Tailor reports to audience needs and technical level\n2. Include actionable recommendations, not just data\n3. Provide drill-down from summary to detail\n4. Automate report generation and distribution\n\nVulnerability reporting and dashboards present vulnerability data through visualizations, summaries, and detailed reports tailored to different audiences. Effective reporting translates technical findings into actionable intelligence for executives, operational teams, and compliance stakeholders.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-reporting-and-dashboards", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598453Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598515Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598515Z"}
{"id": "trtp-625f20ec3588", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Vulnerability Reporting and Dashboards?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Vulnerability Reporting and Dashboards:\n\n- Data overload without actionable insights\n- Inconsistent reporting across time periods\n- Reports that arrive too late to inform action\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Tailor reports to audience needs and technical level\n- Include actionable recommendations, not just data\n- Provide drill-down from summary to detail", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-reporting-and-dashboards", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598453Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598532Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598532Z"}
{"id": "trtp-562f41d97bb4", "instruction": "When should you use Vulnerability Reporting and Dashboards?", "output": "Use cases for Vulnerability Reporting and Dashboards:\n\n- Executive risk communication\n- Operational team task management\n- Trend analysis and program improvement\n- Stakeholder accountability and transparency\n\nVulnerability reporting and dashboards present vulnerability data through visualizations, summaries, and detailed reports tailored to different audiences. Effective reporting translates technical findings into actionable intelligence for executives, operational teams, and compliance stakeholders.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-reporting-and-dashboards", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598453Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598548Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598548Z"}
{"id": "trtp-0ddc15d9a706", "instruction": "What vulnerability management benchmarks are available and how should they be used?", "output": "Available benchmarks include: Industry reports from Verizon DBIR, Mandiant M-Trends, and Ponemon providing breach and vulnerability statistics; Vendor benchmarks from Qualys, Tenable, and Rapid7 aggregating customer data for peer comparison; Framework maturity models like CMMI for cyber providing structured assessment levels; ISACA and SANS surveys collecting practitioner-reported metrics; and Internal historical data comparing current performance against past periods. Usage guidance: understand methodology and peer group composition; recognize survivorship bias in voluntary reporting; use directional guidance rather than precise targets; compare trends rather than absolute values; and combine multiple sources for triangulation. Benchmarks inform goal-setting and justify investment but shouldn't replace risk-based prioritization for your specific environment.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-management-benchmarking", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598557Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598566Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598566Z"}
{"id": "trtp-61d15871bb59", "instruction": "How do organizations assess vulnerability management program maturity?", "output": "Maturity assessment approaches: Capability Maturity Model integration covering initial/reactive through optimized levels across process areas; NIST CSF maturity tiers from partial through adaptive; Custom maturity models assessing dimensions like governance, process, technology, and people; and Peer comparison benchmarking against industry averages. Key dimensions evaluated: governance (policy, roles, accountability); process (identification, prioritization, remediation, verification); technology (tools, automation, integration); coverage (asset types, environments, application security); metrics (measurement, reporting, improvement); and integration (DevOps, risk management, incident response). Assessment process: document current capabilities, identify gaps against target maturity, prioritize improvements, and track progress over time. Maturity assessment guides roadmap development and investment prioritization.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-management-benchmarking", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598557Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598573Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598573Z"}
{"id": "trtp-dce91488739d", "instruction": "What factors make vulnerability management benchmark comparisons valid?", "output": "Valid comparison factors: Industry alignment comparing against organizations facing similar threat landscapes and regulatory requirements; Size normalization accounting for asset counts, employee numbers, and revenue when comparing absolute metrics; Technology similarity comparing organizations with similar infrastructure complexity; Geographic consideration accounting for different regulatory environments; Measurement consistency ensuring compared metrics are calculated the same way; Timeframe alignment comparing equivalent periods; and Scope clarity understanding what's included (just infrastructure? applications? cloud?). Invalid comparisons occur when comparing retail to healthcare, large enterprise to SMB, or heavily regulated to unregulated. Even within valid peer groups, significant variation exists. Focus on identifying improvement opportunities rather than achieving specific rankings. Your goal is reducing your organization's risk, not outperforming peers on metrics.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-management-benchmarking", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598557Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598580Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598580Z"}
{"id": "trtp-3a3f9a57d71b", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Vulnerability Management Benchmarking?", "output": "Vulnerability Management Benchmarking: Benchmarking compares organizational vulnerability management performance against industry peers, frameworks, and internal historical data to identify improvement opportunities and validate program effectiveness. It provides context for metrics and supports investment justification.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Program maturity assessment\n- Investment justification with peer comparison\n- Improvement opportunity identification\n- Realistic goal setting", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-management-benchmarking", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598557Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598592Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598592Z"}
{"id": "trtp-acc955bb564a", "instruction": "How should organizations implement Vulnerability Management Benchmarking?", "output": "Best practices for Vulnerability Management Benchmarking:\n\n1. Compare against relevant peer groups\n2. Normalize for organizational differences\n3. Use multiple benchmark sources\n4. Focus on improvement trajectory, not just ranking\n\nBenchmarking compares organizational vulnerability management performance against industry peers, frameworks, and internal historical data to identify improvement opportunities and validate program effectiveness. It provides context for metrics and supports investment justification.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-management-benchmarking", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598557Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598609Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598609Z"}
{"id": "trtp-563c9f0441ea", "instruction": "What goes wrong with Vulnerability Management Benchmarking?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Vulnerability Management Benchmarking:\n\n- Comparing against dissimilar organizations\n- Using benchmarks without understanding methodology\n- Benchmark gaming at expense of actual security\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Compare against relevant peer groups\n- Normalize for organizational differences\n- Use multiple benchmark sources", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-management-benchmarking", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598557Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598621Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598621Z"}
{"id": "trtp-8526bee471c0", "instruction": "What scenarios require Vulnerability Management Benchmarking?", "output": "Use cases for Vulnerability Management Benchmarking:\n\n- Program maturity assessment\n- Investment justification with peer comparison\n- Improvement opportunity identification\n- Realistic goal setting\n\nBenchmarking compares organizational vulnerability management performance against industry peers, frameworks, and internal historical data to identify improvement opportunities and validate program effectiveness. It provides context for metrics and supports investment justification.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-metrics-vulnerability-management-benchmarking", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598557Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598632Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598632Z"}
{"id": "trtp-a859349a8490", "instruction": "How should organizations respond when a zero-day vulnerability is disclosed?", "output": "Zero-day response process: Immediate assessment (1-4 hours) includes determining exposure by checking affected software/versions in asset inventory, evaluating exploitability requirements (network access, authentication, user interaction), and assessing active exploitation status (CISA KEV, threat intel). Risk evaluation determines business impact based on affected system criticality and data sensitivity. Mitigation deployment activates compensating controls (WAF rules, IPS signatures, network restrictions, feature disabling), which may precede full understanding. Detection enhancement deploys IoCs, enables enhanced logging, and searches for existing compromise. Communication notifies stakeholders of risk status and mitigation actions. Tracking monitors vendor patch timeline and updates organization. Post-patch remediation deploys patches when available and removes temporary controls. Document everything for process improvement.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-zero-day-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598643Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598651Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598651Z"}
{"id": "trtp-c7380664370d", "instruction": "What capabilities enable effective zero-day response?", "output": "Essential zero-day response capabilities: Threat intelligence including commercial feeds, ISACs, vendor alerts, and CISA subscriptions for early warning; Asset inventory with accurate software versions to rapidly assess exposure; Pre-positioned controls with WAF, IPS, and EDR ready to deploy mitigations quickly; Emergency change process enabling rapid deployment without standard change delays; Detection engineering capability to quickly create and deploy detection rules; Incident response readiness assuming compromise and able to investigate; Communication templates pre-drafted for stakeholder notification; and Vendor relationships with direct channels to security teams for affected products. Organizations lacking these capabilities face extended exposure windows. Investment in zero-day readiness pays dividends during high-profile vulnerabilities like Log4Shell, Exchange ProxyLogon, and MOVEit.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-zero-day-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598643Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598658Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598658Z"}
{"id": "trtp-bbfad8fa7153", "instruction": "How do organizations prioritize which zero-days require emergency response?", "output": "Zero-day prioritization factors: Exploitation status where active exploitation in the wild (especially targeted campaigns) demands immediate response; Exposure scope based on how much of your environment runs affected software; Network accessibility determining whether exploitation requires internet access (higher risk) or internal position; Authentication requirements and whether unauthenticated exploitation is possible (higher risk); User interaction requirements and whether exploitation requires user action like opening files; Privilege gained examining if exploitation yields privileged access or limited user context; Asset criticality considering criticality of affected systems; and Compensating control availability and whether mitigations exist pending patches. Not every zero-day warrants all-hands response. Reserve emergency procedures for high-impact, actively-exploited, widely-deployed vulnerabilities. Lower-priority zero-days enter normal but expedited remediation processes.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-zero-day-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598643Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598665Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598665Z"}
{"id": "trtp-c1a92a89d5b5", "instruction": "Describe Zero-Day Vulnerability Management for vulnerability management.", "output": "Zero-Day Vulnerability Management: Zero-day vulnerabilities are security flaws unknown to the vendor with no available patch. Managing zero-days requires rapid threat intelligence consumption, compensating controls deployment, detection capability enhancement, and incident response readiness while awaiting vendor remediation.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Threat intelligence operationalization\n- Emergency response planning\n- Compensating control deployment\n- Risk communication during active threats", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-zero-day-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598643Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598681Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598681Z"}
{"id": "trtp-09196577d394", "instruction": "How should organizations implement Zero-Day Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Best practices for Zero-Day Vulnerability Management:\n\n1. Maintain threat intel subscriptions for early warning\n2. Pre-position compensating control capabilities (WAF, IPS)\n3. Establish emergency change procedures\n4. Practice zero-day response scenarios\n\nZero-day vulnerabilities are security flaws unknown to the vendor with no available patch. Managing zero-days requires rapid threat intelligence consumption, compensating controls deployment, detection capability enhancement, and incident response readiness while awaiting vendor remediation.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-zero-day-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598643Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598698Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598698Z"}
{"id": "trtp-81ac18093c36", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Zero-Day Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Zero-Day Vulnerability Management:\n\n- Panic response without accurate impact assessment\n- Waiting for vendor patches when mitigations exist\n- Over-rotating on low-impact zero-days\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Maintain threat intel subscriptions for early warning\n- Pre-position compensating control capabilities (WAF, IPS)\n- Establish emergency change procedures", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-zero-day-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598643Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598710Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598710Z"}
{"id": "trtp-111ebdfe8da5", "instruction": "When should you use Zero-Day Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Use cases for Zero-Day Vulnerability Management:\n\n- Threat intelligence operationalization\n- Emergency response planning\n- Compensating control deployment\n- Risk communication during active threats\n\nZero-day vulnerabilities are security flaws unknown to the vendor with no available patch. Managing zero-days requires rapid threat intelligence consumption, compensating controls deployment, detection capability enhancement, and incident response readiness while awaiting vendor remediation.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-zero-day-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598643Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598721Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598721Z"}
{"id": "trtp-d8e7b02192f4", "instruction": "What are software supply chain vulnerabilities and why are they challenging to manage?", "output": "Supply chain vulnerabilities exist in the software components organizations use but don't develop: open-source libraries, commercial software, cloud services, and development tools. Challenges include: Visibility gaps where modern applications include hundreds of direct and transitive dependencies, often unknown to developers; Shared risk since a vulnerability in popular libraries (Log4j, OpenSSL) affects thousands of applications simultaneously; Trust assumptions where organizations often lack visibility into upstream security practices; Nested dependencies with transitive dependencies buried multiple layers deep; Update complexity where patching a dependency may break application functionality; and Attack surface since compromised build systems, package repositories, or developer accounts can inject malicious code affecting all downstream users. The SolarWinds and Codecov attacks demonstrated devastating supply chain compromise potential.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-software-supply-chain-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598729Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598737Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598737Z"}
{"id": "trtp-396be219bf09", "instruction": "What is a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) and how does it support vulnerability management?", "output": "An SBOM is a formal, machine-readable inventory of software components and dependencies in an application, analogous to ingredient lists for food products. Formats include CycloneDX and SPDX. SBOM supports vulnerability management by: Enabling rapid impact assessment when vulnerabilities are disclosed, immediately identifying which applications use affected components; Providing dependency visibility including transitive dependencies not obvious from direct inspection; Supporting compliance requirements increasingly mandating SBOMs for government software; Facilitating license compliance identifying open-source license obligations; and Enabling vendor accountability allowing customers to request SBOMs from suppliers. Generation approaches: build-time generation from package managers (most accurate), binary analysis for existing applications, and source code scanning. SBOM programs require: tooling integration into build pipelines, storage and searchability, freshness maintenance, and integration with vulnerability databases.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-software-supply-chain-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598729Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598745Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598745Z"}
{"id": "trtp-bf5916cb02ec", "instruction": "How should organizations implement software composition analysis (SCA)?", "output": "SCA implementation involves: Tool selection choosing commercial (Snyk, Black Duck, Checkmarx SCA) or open-source (OWASP Dependency-Check, Trivy) tools matching your technology stack; Integration points including IDE plugins for developer awareness, CI/CD pipeline gates blocking builds with critical vulnerabilities, container registry scanning, and production monitoring; Policy definition setting thresholds for blocking builds and required remediation timeframes by severity; Developer enablement providing clear guidance on remediating findings and upgrading dependencies; False positive management tuning for accuracy and providing exception workflows; Prioritization focusing on reachable vulnerabilities in your code paths versus theoretical risks; and Metrics tracking vulnerability density, time-to-remediation, and developer adoption. Success requires developer experience focus - tools creating excessive friction see workarounds. Start with visibility, then progressively enable blocking policies as maturity increases.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-software-supply-chain-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598729Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598751Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598751Z"}
{"id": "trtp-0f894bfdb81c", "instruction": "Explain Software Supply Chain Vulnerabilities in vulnerability management.", "output": "Software Supply Chain Vulnerabilities: Supply chain vulnerabilities exist in third-party software components, libraries, and dependencies integrated into organizational applications and infrastructure. Managing them requires software composition analysis, vendor security assessment, dependency tracking, and coordinated response when upstream components are compromised.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Third-party library vulnerability management\n- Vendor security assessment\n- Software bill of materials (SBOM) creation\n- Coordinated disclosure response", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-software-supply-chain-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598729Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598768Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598768Z"}
{"id": "trtp-fdff9164bcb3", "instruction": "What are the recommended approaches for Software Supply Chain Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Best practices for Software Supply Chain Vulnerabilities:\n\n1. Maintain software bill of materials (SBOM)\n2. Implement software composition analysis (SCA)\n3. Assess vendor security practices\n4. Monitor dependency vulnerability disclosures\n\nSupply chain vulnerabilities exist in third-party software components, libraries, and dependencies integrated into organizational applications and infrastructure. Managing them requires software composition analysis, vendor security assessment, dependency tracking, and coordinated response when upstream components are compromised.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-software-supply-chain-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598729Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598781Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598781Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f013aba00162", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Software Supply Chain Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Software Supply Chain Vulnerabilities:\n\n- Invisible dependencies in nested libraries\n- Outdated inventory missing current dependencies\n- Trusting upstream security without verification\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Maintain software bill of materials (SBOM)\n- Implement software composition analysis (SCA)\n- Assess vendor security practices", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-software-supply-chain-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598729Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598793Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598793Z"}
{"id": "trtp-145f0d69cf29", "instruction": "What are the use cases for Software Supply Chain Vulnerabilities?", "output": "Use cases for Software Supply Chain Vulnerabilities:\n\n- Third-party library vulnerability management\n- Vendor security assessment\n- Software bill of materials (SBOM) creation\n- Coordinated disclosure response\n\nSupply chain vulnerabilities exist in third-party software components, libraries, and dependencies integrated into organizational applications and infrastructure. Managing them requires software composition analysis, vendor security assessment, dependency tracking, and coordinated response when upstream components are compromised.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-software-supply-chain-vulnerabilities", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598729Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598807Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598807Z"}
{"id": "trtp-0de85ddf2720", "instruction": "How do organizations track vulnerabilities across their third-party software portfolio?", "output": "Third-party tracking approaches: Vendor portal monitoring tracking security advisories from major vendors (Microsoft MSRC, Cisco PSIRT, Adobe Security); Advisory aggregation using services like CERT/CC, US-CERT, and vendor-neutral feeds; Vulnerability database correlation matching CVEs against installed software inventory; Commercial services with Vulners, VulnDB, and risk rating platforms aggregating multi-vendor data; Automated scanning where vulnerability scanners detect outdated third-party software versions; and SBOM integration tracking dependencies in third-party applications. Challenges include: vendor advisory inconsistency, delayed CVE publication, silent patches without advisories, and EOL software with no updates. Best practice: centralize vendor tracking with assigned ownership, automate where possible, and maintain escalation paths for critical vendors failing to patch.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-third-party-software-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598817Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598825Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598825Z"}
{"id": "trtp-58a045bffd55", "instruction": "What should organizations do when vendors are slow to patch or stop supporting software?", "output": "Managing unpatchable software requires: Risk assessment evaluating actual exposure, exploitability, and business impact of unpatched vulnerabilities; Compensating controls implementing network segmentation, access restrictions, monitoring, and virtual patching; Risk acceptance documenting accepted risk at appropriate executive level with regular review; Migration planning developing timeline and budget to replace EOL or poorly-supported software; Vendor escalation engaging account teams and referencing contractual SLAs for inadequate security response; Alternative sourcing identifying replacement products with better security practices; Insurance review ensuring cyber insurance covers known unpatched vulnerabilities; and Continuous monitoring watching threat landscape for exploitation of your specific vulnerabilities. For critical systems, contractual requirements should specify security patch SLAs and EOL notification periods. Include security assessment rights in vendor contracts.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-third-party-software-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598817Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598832Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598832Z"}
{"id": "trtp-a7bcb974eeb4", "instruction": "How should vendor security be assessed and monitored ongoing?", "output": "Vendor security assessment includes: Pre-contract evaluation through security questionnaires (SIG, CAIQ), penetration test reports, SOC 2 reports, and security certifications; Contractual requirements specifying security standards, vulnerability notification requirements, patch SLAs, audit rights, and breach notification obligations; Risk tiering classifying vendors by data access and criticality for assessment depth; Continuous monitoring using security ratings services (BitSight, SecurityScorecard), breach news monitoring, and periodic reassessment; Vulnerability notification requirements mandating timely disclosure of vulnerabilities affecting your deployment; Incident response coordination defining communication channels and responsibilities during security incidents; and Exit planning including data return/destruction and security during transition. Vendor security monitoring should be proportional to risk - assess high-risk vendors thoroughly and continuously, lower-risk vendors periodically.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-third-party-software-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598817Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598839Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598839Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f367c9518f30", "instruction": "Describe Third-Party Software Vulnerability Management for vulnerability management.", "output": "Third-Party Software Vulnerability Management: Third-party vulnerability management addresses security risks in vendor-supplied software, appliances, and services where the organization lacks source code access and depends on vendor patching. It requires vendor monitoring, contractual security requirements, compensating controls, and risk acceptance decisions for unpatchable systems.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Enterprise software patch management\n- Network appliance vulnerability tracking\n- SaaS security monitoring\n- Vendor security assessment and monitoring", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-third-party-software-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598817Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598855Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598855Z"}
{"id": "trtp-c730012879f9", "instruction": "How should organizations implement Third-Party Software Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Best practices for Third-Party Software Vulnerability Management:\n\n1. Track vendor security advisories systematically\n2. Include security SLAs in vendor contracts\n3. Maintain vendor criticality ratings\n4. Plan compensating controls for patch delays\n\nThird-party vulnerability management addresses security risks in vendor-supplied software, appliances, and services where the organization lacks source code access and depends on vendor patching. It requires vendor monitoring, contractual security requirements, compensating controls, and risk acceptance decisions for unpatchable systems.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-third-party-software-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598817Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598868Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598868Z"}
{"id": "trtp-8bc57f1f08f0", "instruction": "What are common pitfalls with Third-Party Software Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Third-Party Software Vulnerability Management:\n\n- Assuming vendor responsibility eliminates your risk\n- Missing advisories due to inconsistent vendor communication\n- No recourse for vendors with poor security practices\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Track vendor security advisories systematically\n- Include security SLAs in vendor contracts\n- Maintain vendor criticality ratings", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-third-party-software-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598817Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598880Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598880Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f3b57cfc0cc1", "instruction": "What are the use cases for Third-Party Software Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Use cases for Third-Party Software Vulnerability Management:\n\n- Enterprise software patch management\n- Network appliance vulnerability tracking\n- SaaS security monitoring\n- Vendor security assessment and monitoring\n\nThird-party vulnerability management addresses security risks in vendor-supplied software, appliances, and services where the organization lacks source code access and depends on vendor patching. It requires vendor monitoring, contractual security requirements, compensating controls, and risk acceptance decisions for unpatchable systems.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-third-party-software-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598817Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598891Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598891Z"}
{"id": "trtp-e4a0a3326be7", "instruction": "How does the shared responsibility model affect cloud vulnerability management?", "output": "Shared responsibility divides security obligations between cloud providers and customers, varying by service type: IaaS (EC2, Compute Engine) where customers manage OS, applications, and data while providers handle physical infrastructure and hypervisor; PaaS (Lambda, Cloud Functions) where customers manage application code and data while providers handle runtime, OS, and infrastructure; and SaaS (Office 365, Salesforce) where customers manage data and access controls while providers handle everything else. Vulnerability management implications: customer responsibilities require traditional vulnerability scanning plus cloud configuration assessment; provider responsibilities require monitoring vendor security posture and reviewing their compliance certifications. Misunderstanding boundaries causes gaps - organizations may assume provider patches OS for IaaS (they don't) or that providers prevent data exposure for SaaS (they provide controls, customers must use them).", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-cloud-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598900Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598908Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598908Z"}
{"id": "trtp-80cc9d60af99", "instruction": "What is Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) and how does it address cloud vulnerabilities?", "output": "CSPM continuously monitors cloud environments for misconfigurations, compliance violations, and security risks. Capabilities include: Configuration assessment checking cloud resources against security best practices (public S3 buckets, overly permissive security groups, unencrypted storage); Compliance monitoring validating against frameworks (CIS Benchmarks, PCI-DSS, HIPAA); IAM analysis identifying excessive permissions, unused credentials, and privilege escalation paths; Network exposure detecting publicly accessible resources and unrestricted ingress rules; Encryption verification ensuring data-at-rest and in-transit encryption; Drift detection alerting when configurations deviate from approved baselines; and Multi-cloud correlation providing unified view across AWS, Azure, GCP. Tools include cloud-native options (AWS Security Hub, Azure Defender, GCP Security Command Center) and third-party solutions (Prisma Cloud, Wiz, Orca). CSPM addresses cloud's unique risk: misconfigurations are the leading cause of cloud breaches.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-cloud-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598900Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598915Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598915Z"}
{"id": "trtp-71ea6667ecd7", "instruction": "How should organizations approach vulnerability management in cloud-native architectures?", "output": "Cloud-native vulnerability management requires: Container image scanning checking images for vulnerable packages before deployment and in registries; Runtime protection monitoring container behavior for exploitation and drift from approved images; Kubernetes security assessing cluster configurations, RBAC policies, network policies, and pod security standards; Serverless security scanning function code and dependencies for vulnerabilities; IaC scanning checking Terraform, CloudFormation, and Kubernetes manifests for misconfigurations before deployment; API security monitoring cloud API usage for suspicious patterns and exposed credentials; and CI/CD integration shifting security left by scanning in development pipelines. Tool evolution: traditional vulnerability scanners lack cloud context while cloud-native tools (Aqua, Sysdig, Lacework) understand container, Kubernetes, and serverless architectures. Key principle: immutable infrastructure enables vulnerability management through replacement - patch by deploying new images rather than updating running systems.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-cloud-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598900Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598926Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598926Z"}
{"id": "trtp-6dff84684619", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Cloud Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Cloud Vulnerability Management: Cloud vulnerability management addresses security risks in cloud infrastructure, services, and workloads across shared responsibility models. It encompasses cloud security posture management (CSPM), workload vulnerability scanning, IAM configuration assessment, and cloud-native security controls.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Multi-cloud security posture management\n- Cloud workload protection\n- IaC security scanning\n- Cloud compliance monitoring", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-cloud-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598900Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598939Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598939Z"}
{"id": "trtp-1474b47a015a", "instruction": "How should organizations implement Cloud Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Best practices for Cloud Vulnerability Management:\n\n1. Understand shared responsibility for each service\n2. Deploy cloud-native security tools\n3. Scan infrastructure as code pre-deployment\n4. Monitor for configuration drift\n\nCloud vulnerability management addresses security risks in cloud infrastructure, services, and workloads across shared responsibility models. It encompasses cloud security posture management (CSPM), workload vulnerability scanning, IAM configuration assessment, and cloud-native security controls.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-cloud-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598900Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598955Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598955Z"}
{"id": "trtp-c93917218d1b", "instruction": "What mistakes should you avoid with Cloud Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Cloud Vulnerability Management:\n\n- Assuming cloud provider handles all security\n- Traditional tools missing cloud-native risks\n- Ignoring IaC security until production\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Understand shared responsibility for each service\n- Deploy cloud-native security tools\n- Scan infrastructure as code pre-deployment", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-cloud-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598900Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598967Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598967Z"}
{"id": "trtp-df41c090612d", "instruction": "When should you use Cloud Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Use cases for Cloud Vulnerability Management:\n\n- Multi-cloud security posture management\n- Cloud workload protection\n- IaC security scanning\n- Cloud compliance monitoring\n\nCloud vulnerability management addresses security risks in cloud infrastructure, services, and workloads across shared responsibility models. It encompasses cloud security posture management (CSPM), workload vulnerability scanning, IAM configuration assessment, and cloud-native security controls.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-cloud-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598900Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598978Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598978Z"}
{"id": "trtp-b921d28edaab", "instruction": "Where do vulnerabilities exist in containerized environments?", "output": "Container vulnerability layers include: Base images containing OS packages that may have vulnerabilities (official images often have hundreds); Application dependencies with language-specific packages (npm, pip, gem) with known CVEs; Application code with custom code vulnerabilities (injection, logic flaws); Container configuration including Dockerfile settings running as root, exposing unnecessary ports, or including secrets; Runtime configuration with container execution settings (privileged mode, host namespaces, capability grants); Orchestrator configuration covering Kubernetes RBAC, network policies, pod security, and admission controllers; Container runtime with Docker, containerd, or CRI-O daemon vulnerabilities; Host OS underlying container host vulnerabilities; and Registry security covering image storage and distribution security. Comprehensive container security requires scanning and protection across all layers, not just application dependencies.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-container-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598986Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598996Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598996Z"}
{"id": "trtp-6c0a0914ed03", "instruction": "How should container images be scanned and secured throughout their lifecycle?", "output": "Lifecycle security stages: Development where IDE plugins provide early feedback on base image and dependency choices; Build stage with CI/CD scanners (Trivy, Clair, Snyk) fail builds exceeding vulnerability thresholds; Registry storage with continuous scanning detecting newly-disclosed vulnerabilities in stored images; Admission control using Kubernetes admission controllers blocking deployment of non-compliant images; Runtime using container security platforms monitoring for vulnerability exploitation and unauthorized behavior; and Update/Retire with automated rebuilds when base images update and retirement of images exceeding age limits. Implementation practices: establish approved base images maintained centrally, implement image signing and verification, define vulnerability SLAs appropriate to container lifecycles (often shorter than traditional systems), and automate rebuild pipelines to rapidly deploy patched images.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-container-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598986Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599007Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599007Z"}
{"id": "trtp-c13efd0aab0c", "instruction": "What unique challenges does Kubernetes present for vulnerability management?", "output": "Kubernetes vulnerability challenges: Cluster component vulnerabilities in API server, kubelet, etcd, and other control plane components requiring coordinated updates; Configuration complexity with RBAC, NetworkPolicies, PodSecurityPolicies/Standards, and admission webhooks creating misconfiguration risks; Workload sprawl with dynamic deployments making asset inventory challenging; Privileged containers with workloads requiring elevated privileges needing additional scrutiny; Secrets management with improperly stored secrets exposed through environment variables or mounted volumes; Network exposure where Services and Ingress can unintentionally expose internal workloads; Third-party operators with Helm charts and operators introducing unknown vulnerabilities; and Multi-tenancy boundaries where namespace isolation is easily violated without proper configuration. Tools: kube-bench (CIS benchmark), kube-hunter (penetration testing), Falco (runtime security), OPA/Gatekeeper (policy enforcement), and commercial platforms providing comprehensive Kubernetes security posture management.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-container-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598986Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599017Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599017Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ccca0fb68dff", "instruction": "What do security teams need to know about Container Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Container Vulnerability Management: Container vulnerability management addresses security risks in containerized applications including base image vulnerabilities, application dependencies, runtime configurations, and orchestration platform security. It requires scanning across the container lifecycle from development through production.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Container image security gate\n- Registry vulnerability monitoring\n- Runtime container protection\n- Kubernetes security assessment", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-container-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598986Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599029Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599029Z"}
{"id": "trtp-8b2f3a809b71", "instruction": "What are the recommended approaches for Container Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Best practices for Container Vulnerability Management:\n\n1. Use minimal base images (distroless, Alpine)\n2. Scan images in CI/CD and registries\n3. Implement admission controllers for runtime gates\n4. Establish image freshness policies\n\nContainer vulnerability management addresses security risks in containerized applications including base image vulnerabilities, application dependencies, runtime configurations, and orchestration platform security. It requires scanning across the container lifecycle from development through production.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-container-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598986Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599045Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599045Z"}
{"id": "trtp-1a6e635e8fc4", "instruction": "What goes wrong with Container Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with Container Vulnerability Management:\n\n- Scanning only at build time, missing registry drift\n- Base images with unnecessary packages\n- Ignoring container runtime vulnerabilities\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Use minimal base images (distroless, Alpine)\n- Scan images in CI/CD and registries\n- Implement admission controllers for runtime gates", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-container-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598986Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599057Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599057Z"}
{"id": "trtp-5244b8b99848", "instruction": "What are the use cases for Container Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Use cases for Container Vulnerability Management:\n\n- Container image security gate\n- Registry vulnerability monitoring\n- Runtime container protection\n- Kubernetes security assessment\n\nContainer vulnerability management addresses security risks in containerized applications including base image vulnerabilities, application dependencies, runtime configurations, and orchestration platform security. It requires scanning across the container lifecycle from development through production.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-container-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.598986Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599069Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599069Z"}
{"id": "trtp-40677ce3ad96", "instruction": "How does vulnerability management differ between IT and OT/ICS environments?", "output": "Key IT/OT differences: Availability priority where OT systems often require 24/7 operation with patching during limited maintenance windows; Safety implications since OT vulnerabilities may endanger human safety or environment, not just data; Legacy systems with 15-20+ year equipment lifecycles running obsolete, unpatched operating systems; Vendor dependencies requiring manufacturer approval and support for patches to maintain warranties and safety certifications; Scanning sensitivity where active scanning can crash OT devices not designed for network probing; Air-gapped networks with many OT environments isolated from IT networks, requiring different scanning approaches; Protocol differences since proprietary industrial protocols (Modbus, DNP3, OPC) require specialized vulnerability assessment; and Regulatory frameworks including sector-specific requirements (NERC CIP, IEC 62443) with unique patching expectations. OT vulnerability management requires ICS security expertise, not just IT security applied to different systems.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-ot-ics-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599077Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599089Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599089Z"}
{"id": "trtp-c78fcd5c5752", "instruction": "What approaches enable vulnerability identification in OT environments without disrupting operations?", "output": "OT-safe vulnerability assessment approaches: Passive monitoring using network taps to identify devices and vulnerabilities without injecting traffic; Configuration auditing extracting device configurations for offline analysis; Vendor advisories tracking ICS-CERT, vendor security bulletins, and OT-specific threat intelligence; Safe scanning with OT-aware scanners (Claroty, Dragos, Nozomi) designed for industrial protocol safety; Lab testing validating scanning approaches in isolated lab environments before production; Manual assessment with expert review of architectures, configurations, and access controls; Firmware analysis examining device firmware for vulnerabilities offline; and Network architecture review assessing segmentation, access paths, and exposure. Many OT vulnerabilities are identified through vendor advisories and configuration review rather than active scanning. Implement compensating controls (segmentation, monitoring) while planning coordinated remediation during maintenance windows.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-ot-ics-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599077Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599097Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599097Z"}
{"id": "trtp-d088e4fa0371", "instruction": "How should organizations prioritize OT vulnerability remediation given operational constraints?", "output": "OT prioritization factors: Safety impact with vulnerabilities affecting safety instrumented systems or enabling dangerous physical states as highest priority; Process impact based on potential for production disruption, product quality, or equipment damage; Exposure considering network accessibility (IT-connected versus isolated), physical access requirements, and protocol accessibility; Exploitability based on whether public exploits exist and exploitation complexity; Compensating control effectiveness examining existing segmentation, monitoring, and access controls reducing risk; and Regulatory compliance addressing compliance framework requirements. Remediation approaches: immediate response for actively exploited vulnerabilities through compensating controls, then coordinated patching; planned remediation aligning patch deployment with operational windows (turnarounds, maintenance); risk acceptance for low-risk vulnerabilities on legacy systems with compensating controls documented; and system replacement planning lifecycle replacement for end-of-life systems that cannot be secured. OT vulnerability SLAs are typically longer than IT, compensated by stronger segmentation and monitoring requirements.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-ot-ics-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599077Z", "transform_template": "embedded_qa_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599104Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599104Z"}
{"id": "trtp-ce8a3060138e", "instruction": "Explain OT/ICS Vulnerability Management in vulnerability management.", "output": "OT/ICS Vulnerability Management: Operational Technology (OT) and Industrial Control System (ICS) vulnerability management addresses security risks in systems controlling physical processes, including SCADA, PLCs, DCS, and industrial networks. It requires specialized approaches balancing security with safety, availability, and legacy system constraints.\n\nKey use cases:\n- Critical infrastructure protection\n- Manufacturing security\n- Energy sector compliance (NERC CIP)\n- Safety system security assessment", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-ot-ics-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599077Z", "transform_template": "explain_concept_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599116Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599116Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f2fd34961cdf", "instruction": "What are best practices for OT/ICS Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Best practices for OT/ICS Vulnerability Management:\n\n1. Establish OT-specific vulnerability programs\n2. Prioritize by safety impact, not just IT severity\n3. Implement network segmentation as primary control\n4. Coordinate patching with operational windows\n\nOperational Technology (OT) and Industrial Control System (ICS) vulnerability management addresses security risks in systems controlling physical processes, including SCADA, PLCs, DCS, and industrial networks. It requires specialized approaches balancing security with safety, availability, and legacy system constraints.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-ot-ics-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599077Z", "transform_template": "best_practices_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599129Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599129Z"}
{"id": "trtp-f6c25cd90f58", "instruction": "What goes wrong with OT/ICS Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Common pitfalls to avoid with OT/ICS Vulnerability Management:\n\n- Applying IT scanning tools to OT without modification\n- Patching without vendor validation\n- Ignoring legacy systems as untouchable\n\nInstead, follow these practices:\n- Establish OT-specific vulnerability programs\n- Prioritize by safety impact, not just IT severity\n- Implement network segmentation as primary control", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-ot-ics-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599077Z", "transform_template": "pitfalls_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599141Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599141Z"}
{"id": "trtp-6f8634228c9f", "instruction": "When should you use OT/ICS Vulnerability Management?", "output": "Use cases for OT/ICS Vulnerability Management:\n\n- Critical infrastructure protection\n- Manufacturing security\n- Energy sector compliance (NERC CIP)\n- Safety system security assessment\n\nOperational Technology (OT) and Industrial Control System (ICS) vulnerability management addresses security risks in systems controlling physical processes, including SCADA, PLCs, DCS, and industrial networks. It requires specialized approaches balancing security with safety, availability, and legacy system constraints.", "category": "vulnerability_management", "team": "blue", "phase": "5e", "provenance": {"source_type": "documentation", "source_id": "vulnerability_management-specific_types-ot-ics-vulnerability-management", "license": "original", "retrieved_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599077Z", "transform_template": "use_cases_v1", "transform_version": "1.0.0"}, "quality": {"auto_score": null, "human_reviewed": false, "human_decision": null, "flags": []}, "created_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599152Z", "updated_at": "2025-12-18T01:49:42.599152Z"}