For CISOs & Security Teams
Close your open-source audit findings
before the auditor does.
EOL open-source software is the fastest-growing category of audit findings. OSSeva provides CVE-patched builds, compliance attestations, and remediation narratives that satisfy SOC 2, PCI DSS, HIPAA, ISO 27001, DORA, and FedRAMP requirements — for the runtimes your auditor is looking at.
Book a compliance assessmentFramework-by-framework risk and remedy
Every major compliance framework has an explicit control that EOL open-source software violates. Here's the specific control, the finding, and how OSSeva closes it.
The Finding
Unpatched middleware is a CC7.1 finding — Change Management requires documented remediation for known vulnerabilities.
OSSeva Remedy
OSSeva provides per-CVE remediation narratives and patch attestation letters accepted without revision by SOC 2 auditors.
The Finding
Requirement 6.3.3 mandates security patches applied within defined timeframes. EOL software with no patch source is a direct finding.
OSSeva Remedy
OSSeva patches document exact remediation dates, CVE identifiers, and affected version ranges — directly addressable in QSA reviews.
The Finding
The Security Rule requires a risk analysis that includes known vulnerabilities. EOL software without a patch source is an unmitigated risk — a reportable finding.
OSSeva Remedy
OSSeva's compliance documentation package includes risk analysis support, patch evidence, and mitigation documentation for HIPAA audit cycles.
The Finding
Control A.12.6.1 requires management of technical vulnerabilities. Running EOL software without a patch strategy fails this control at certification.
OSSeva Remedy
OSSeva provides the technical vulnerability management process evidence your ISO 27001 certification requires — for every covered runtime.
The Finding
The EU Digital Operational Resilience Act requires financial institutions to manage ICT third-party risk and operational resilience, including software vulnerability management.
OSSeva Remedy
OSSeva's continuous monitoring and documented remediation cadence supports DORA ICT risk management obligations for covered financial entities.
The Finding
FedRAMP continuous monitoring and vulnerability remediation requirements mandate patching timelines for SI-2 (Flaw Remediation): Critical ≤ 30 days, High ≤ 90 days.
OSSeva Remedy
OSSeva Operate's patch SLAs — 48 hours for Critical, 7 days for High — meet FedRAMP SI-2 requirements out of the box, with documented evidence.
What compliance documentation you receive
Patch attestation letters
Every CVE remediation ships with a signed attestation letter citing the specific compliance control addressed. Hand directly to your auditor.
Per-CVE remediation narratives
Structured documentation for each vulnerability: CVE ID, CVSS score, affected versions, remediation approach, patch date, and residual risk statement.
Non-applicability documentation
When a CVE doesn't affect your deployment topology, we document why — so your auditor has a citable record instead of a gap.
SLA-backed patch cadence
With OSSeva Operate: Critical CVEs patched within 48 hours. High within 7 days. Full batch quarterly. Emergency hotfixes for actively exploited vulnerabilities. All documented.
Frequently asked questions
How does OSSeva help close audit findings related to EOL software?
OSSeva eliminates the most common EOL software audit findings by providing: (1) patched builds that address all CVSS ≥ 4.0 CVEs, (2) attestation letters documenting the CVEs addressed for each technology, (3) compliance evidence matrices mapped to the specific framework controls cited in the finding (PCI DSS Req 6.3, SOC 2 CC7, HIPAA §164.312). These documents are designed to satisfy auditor requests directly.
Can OSSeva provide a third-party attestation that our OSS stack is patched?
Yes. OSSeva issues attestation letters on company letterhead signed by our compliance team for every patch cycle. These letters are accepted by Big 4 auditors, QSAs, and OCC examiners as third-party assurance evidence. For SOC 2 engagements, OSSeva's own SOC 2 Type II report (available under NDA) can be provided as a subservice organization report.
What is the CISO's liability exposure from running EOL open-source software?
CISOs face direct liability exposure from EOL software in two ways. First, regulatory: PCI DSS, HIPAA, and DORA all require systems to be protected against known vulnerabilities — running EOL software with unpatched CVEs is a direct violation. Second, fiduciary: if a breach occurs through an unpatched EOL component, the CISO's decision to knowingly run that software without mitigation is a documented risk acceptance that boards and regulators will scrutinize. OSSeva converts that risk into a managed, documented, and auditable security posture.
Audit-ready open source starts here.
One discovery call. We'll identify every EOL finding in your stack and show you exactly how OSSeva closes it.