CA-5 Plan of action and milestones: evidence and cost

What CA-5 plan of action and milestones requires in plain words

When an assessor or authorizing official reviews a system, they want three answers for every open problem: what is still open, who owns the fix, and when it will close. CA-5 Plan of action and milestones is the control that requires the system to keep those answers in one place. In plain terms, the organization must maintain a plan for the system that documents the planned remediation of weaknesses or deficiencies found in control assessments, along with known vulnerabilities, and must update that plan at a defined frequency based on assessments, independent audits or reviews, and continuous monitoring. The catalog notes that these plans are required in authorization packages, so the plan is part of what an authorizing official reviews before deciding whether to accept the risk of operating the system.

The risk CA-5 addresses is simple to describe and easy to live with badly: findings disappear from view. A scan result is triaged in one tool, an assessor's finding sits in a report, and an audit comment lives in an email thread, and after a few months nobody can say which items were fixed, which were accepted, and which were quietly dropped. The control is selected in the low, moderate, high and privacy baselines in SP 800-53B Release 5.2.0, so every system that follows those baselines needs the plan. The enhancement CA-5(1), which concerns automation support for accuracy and currency, is not selected in any of those baselines, so automation of the plan is a design choice rather than a baseline requirement. Organizations usually find the hard part is not writing the first plan but keeping it accurate: items need named owners, realistic milestones, and a record of when risk was formally accepted instead of fixed. Confirm with your authorizing official exactly what format and update frequency they expect before you choose a tool.

Which weaknesses, systems and teams belong in the POA&M

A POA&M is only as useful as its scope. The decisions below determine which findings enter the plan, which systems and common controls it covers, and who owns each remediation item. Settle them in writing before the first assessment closes, because CA-5 expects the plan to be updated from assessments, audits and continuous monitoring on a defined frequency.

Control assessment findings

Weaknesses and deficiencies recorded in the control assessment report under CA-2 are the core input to CA-5. Each finding that the assessor reports as not satisfied, or only partly satisfied, needs a POA&M entry or a documented reason it does not. Check that the assessment report, the POA&M and the system security plan describe the same weakness in the same terms, so an assessor can trace each item from finding to remediation.

Independent audit and review results

Findings from independent audits, inspector general reviews and internal audits also feed the plan. Under CA-5 the update frequency is defined by the organization, and these reviews often arrive on a different cycle from the assessor's work. Confirm who receives audit reports, who decides whether a finding is a weakness that needs an item, and how a finding that is disputed is recorded until the dispute is closed.

Vulnerability scan results

Known vulnerabilities from authenticated scans belong in the plan when they cannot be remediated within the normal patch window, or when the affected system is in scope for authorization. Scanner output is noisy, so decide the rules for false positives, accepted risk and deduplication before import. Greenbone Community Edition stores results in PostgreSQL and schedules scan tasks, which gives a repeatable source of scan evidence to reference from each item.

Continuous monitoring outputs

Metrics, status reports and ongoing assessment results produced under CA-7 are a steady source of new items after authorization. Agree which monitoring thresholds open a POA&M entry automatically, which only require review, and how a closed item is evidenced. Without these rules, the plan either grows with noise or misses drift that the monitoring program already detected.

Systems and common controls in scope

Each authorization boundary usually has its own plan, but common controls inherited by several systems need one shared plan owned by the provider of those controls. Decide whether a weakness in a shared control appears once in the common plan or is copied into each dependent system's plan. Copying creates conflicting status records, while a single entry requires every inheriting system to reference it.

Remediation owners and third parties

Assign every item to a named accountable owner, usually a system owner or control owner, and a responsible remediating team. Items that depend on a vendor patch, a cloud provider or a managed service need a third-party line with the contractual dependency and the date the vendor committed to. Confirm that security operations can see and update the items they are assigned, so status reflects real remediation rather than a planning document.

How an assessor tests CA-5 and what they ask to see

This table maps the two CA-5 determination statements in SP 800-53A to the examine, interview and test methods and the objects an assessor uses for each. Read each row as a question the assessor will ask, then check the common findings column against your own POA&M before the assessment starts.

Assessment element	What the assessor examines, interviews or tests	Evidence that passes	Common findings
Determination statement 1: planned remediation documented	Examine the POA&M and the control assessment report to confirm each weakness or deficiency from assessments has a planned remediation entry	POA&M entries traceable to specific findings in the control assessment report, with a remediation action and planned completion date	Findings in the assessment report with no matching POA&M entry; entries that restate the finding without a remediation action
Determination statement 2: plan updated at the defined frequency	Examine the POA&M revision history and compare it with assessment, audit and continuous monitoring dates	Revision history showing updates after each assessment, independent audit and monitoring cycle, as defined in the organization's own frequency	Plans not updated after the most recent assessment; update frequency defined in policy but not followed
Examine: control assessment plan and report	Compare the control assessment plan and report with the POA&M to check that identified weaknesses flow into it	Assessment report findings cross-referenced to POA&M identifiers	Assessment report and POA&M maintained in separate tools with no shared identifiers
Examine: control assessment evidence	Review the evidence cited to show remediation or to justify a closed item	Closure evidence such as configuration output, scan results or change records tied to each closed item	Closed items with no evidence, or evidence that predates the weakness it claims to fix
Interview: personnel who develop and implement the POA&M	Ask system owners, the ISSO and the assigned risk owner how items are created, prioritized, assigned and closed	Consistent answers across roles that match the documented process and the POA&M entries	Items without owners; interviewees unable to describe how a closed item was verified
Test: mechanisms for developing, implementing and maintaining the POA&M	Observe or test the tool, template or workflow used to record, update and close items	Demonstrated workflow with access control, mandatory fields and audit trail for status changes	Spreadsheets with no version control; status changes made without a record of who approved them
Sizing driver for effort	Number of open findings, number of systems covered and how many assessment sources feed the plan	Clear scope of which systems and sources the POA&M covers	Cost and effort rise when findings are scattered across tools; ask the implementation partner to confirm the sources in scope before quoting
Who issues the assessment result	The independent assessor or the authorizing official determines whether CA-5 is satisfied	Organization prepares the plan and evidence; the assessor reaches the determination	Organizations sometimes treat a readiness review by a partner as an assessment outcome; only the assessor's report carries that weight

How to build a POA&M that survives an assessment

This sequence turns CA-5 from a document that exists into a plan that assessors can trace from each finding to a named owner, a dated milestone, a risk statement and a closure record. Each step names the output it leaves behind, so the POA&M can be defended in an authorization package.

Define the update frequency and triggers
The organization sets how often the plan-of-action-and-milestones is updated and which events force an immediate update, such as a new assessment report, an independent audit finding or a significant change to the system. CA-5 requires a defined frequency, and that value is chosen by the organization, not taken from NIST. Record the frequency and triggers in the organization's own procedures for the CA family, and confirm the value with the authorizing official and the assessor before the first cycle. Done means the procedure names the frequency, lists every trigger and assigns a single owner for the plan.
Set intake from assessments, audits and monitoring
Define the sources that feed the plan: control assessment reports, independent audit or review results, continuous monitoring output and known vulnerabilities from scanners. Each source should produce a finding record with a unique identifier, the affected system and control, the date observed and the source reference. Where vulnerability scanners or findings platforms are used, confirm how their exports map to these fields and whether duplicate findings are merged. Done means every incoming item lands in one intake queue with a consistent record format.
Triage and validate each weakness
The control owner and security team confirm whether each item is a real weakness or deficiency against the control, or a false positive, accepted risk or duplicate. Validated items are linked to the control they affect, such as the assessment finding for a specific CA-2 or RA-5 result. Rejected items keep a written reason so an assessor can see why they were not planned. Done means every entry in the queue is either validated and linked, or closed with a documented rationale.
Assign owners and milestones for each weakness
Each validated weakness gets one accountable owner, a planned remediation approach and one or more milestones that show intermediate progress toward closure. Milestones should be specific enough that a reviewer can tell whether they were met, for example a configuration change deployed to a named environment or a compensating control documented and tested. The organization sets the dates for each milestone and the owner signs off on them. Done means every open item has an owner, at least one milestone and a planned completion date recorded in the plan.
Record risk and planned completion
For each weakness, record the risk it presents to the system, the likelihood and impact basis used, any compensating controls in place during remediation and the planned completion date. Risk statements should reference the organization's own risk assessment method rather than an invented score. The authorizing official needs this to decide whether to accept the residual risk while work is underway. Done means each entry shows the risk statement, the basis for it and the planned completion date, and any accepted residual risk has a named approver.
Track status changes with evidence
Each status change, such as moving an item from planned to in progress, from in progress to completed, or from completed to verified, is recorded with the date, the person making the change and the evidence that supports it. Evidence can include change records, configuration exports, scan results showing the weakness no longer appears or retest reports. Items whose planned date passes without closure should be flagged and reviewed, with the reason and revised milestone recorded. Done means every status change points to a retained artifact, and no item is marked closed without evidence.
Verify closure and update the plan
Closure is confirmed independently of the team that did the work, usually through a re-test, a re-scan or a review by the assessment function. The verified closure is written into the plan and the closed item stays visible in the history rather than being deleted. New items found during verification re-enter intake at step two. Done means each closed entry shows who verified it, how, and when, and the plan version is saved for the next assessment cycle.
Review the plan with authorizing officials
The plan is presented to the authorizing official and the system owner at the frequency defined in step one, with the open items, overdue items, accepted risks and closures since the last review. The review decision, such as continued authorization, conditions or escalation, is recorded with the date and the names of the reviewers. The current plan version is then included in the authorization package. Done means a signed or recorded review exists for the current plan version, and the package references it.

Evidence that passes a CA-5 review

An assessor testing CA-5 samples the plan itself and then traces its entries back to the findings and closure records that justify them. The cards below cover the artifacts that connect a POA&M entry to its source, its status history and its closure, plus the routines that keep those artifacts current between assessments.

The current POA&M with traceable sources

The plan is the first artifact an assessor pulls. Each item should name the weakness or deficiency, the affected system component, the responsible owner, the planned remediation and a scheduled completion date. Check that every item points to a specific source, such as a control assessment report entry, an audit finding, a continuous monitoring result or a known vulnerability identifier. An item with no source is hard to defend because the assessor cannot confirm why it exists.

Assessment report entries that generated items

Keep the control assessment report entries that caused each POA&M item to be opened, including the determination for the affected control, the assessment method used and the date of the finding. The assessor will compare these entries against the plan to confirm that weaknesses found in assessments were recorded and not dropped. Missing links between a report finding and a plan item are a common gap in CA-5 reviews.

Dated status changes and rationale

Every change to an item, including new dates, reassigned owners, risk acceptance decisions and status moves, should carry a date and a short reason. An assessor looks for items whose completion dates moved repeatedly without explanation. Where a risk is accepted instead of remediated, the record should show who approved it and the reasoning. Undated edits to a plan are difficult to rely on during an audit.

Closure evidence for completed items

A closed item needs proof that the weakness is gone. Useful evidence includes a rescan result that no longer shows the vulnerability, a configuration record showing the corrected setting, a test result confirming the fix or a change ticket linked to the deployed version. Ask whether the closure artifact was produced by someone other than the person who made the fix, since assessors often treat independent verification as stronger evidence.

Records of review at the defined frequency

CA-5 requires the plan to be updated at a frequency the organization defines, so the assessor will ask for records showing that reviews actually happened. Keep meeting notes, approval records or dated plan versions that show each review. Confirm your defined frequency in the system security plan and check that review dates in the records match it. A plan that was last updated well before the defined interval will raise questions regardless of its content.

Change log and named plan owner

Between audits, the plan stays current only if one person owns it and every edit is logged. Name the plan owner in the plan itself, and record who changed what, when and why in a change log kept alongside the plan. Pair the log with a short routine that pulls new findings from scanners and monitoring tools into the plan on a set schedule. Ask the auditor which evidence they expect to see for ownership and change history before the review begins.

What a CA-5 POA&M costs in money and effort

This table lists the cost components of keeping a CA-5 plan of action and milestones current, who is paid for each, whether it is one-time or recurring, and what pushes it up or down. NIST does not estimate compliance costs, so use the table to build your scope and then request a written quote against it.

Cost component	Who is paid or who carries it	One-time or recurring	What drives it up or down
Tracking tooling or licenses	Software vendor or open-source project; internal platform team for hosting	Setup one-time, hosting and upkeep recurring	Open-source tracking platforms remove license spend, but hosting, patching and backups still need staff time. Confirm licensing terms before adoption.
Engineering time to tie findings to POA&M items	Internal engineers or an implementation partner preparing the import and mapping	One-time for the pipeline; recurring for each new scan source	Number of scanners and report formats, and whether findings are deduplicated before they reach the POA&M. More sources mean more mapping work.
Owner time for remediation planning	Control, system and business owners named in each item	Recurring with each assessment, audit or monitoring cycle	Volume of weaknesses and vulnerabilities, number of systems in the authorization boundary, and how many items need risk acceptance or a re-scheduled milestone.
Evidence upkeep	Internal compliance and security staff	Recurring	Frequency of required updates, how many items close per cycle, and whether closure evidence is captured at the time of fix rather than reconstructed later.
Independent assessment or review	Independent assessor or auditor, if engaged	Recurring, tied to the assessment cycle	Baseline selected for the system (low, moderate or high in SP 800-53B), number of controls assessed, and the scope the assessor must test against the POA&M.
Auditor or assessor sampling effort	Assessor or auditor, billed under the engagement	Recurring with each assessment	Size of the POA&M and the sample the assessor draws. Clean, current records with consistent item identifiers usually reduce testing time.
Scope of systems and baseline	Drives all of the above	Set during scoping, revisited on change	Adding systems or moving to a higher baseline increases the number of items to track and the update frequency. Ask for pricing per system and per baseline in the quote.

Open-source tools that feed and track CA-5 evidence

Three open-source tools cover different parts of the CA-5 workflow: finding intake, vulnerability scanning and assessment tracking. Used together, they give the plan owner a traceable trail from a weakness to its remediation record, but none of them decides what goes on the plan or when it closes.

DefectDojo for consolidated findings

DefectDojo (BSD-3-Clause) imports and reimports findings from many scanner report formats through its UI or API, including the open source edition, and offers a generic findings import for other sources. It deduplicates findings using per-tool hashcode fields, so a weakness reported by several tools across assessment cycles can be tracked as one item. For CA-5, this supports a single record for each weakness, with reimports showing whether it persists. Confirm which report formats and deduplication settings your chosen version supports against the current documentation.

Greenbone scheduled vulnerability scans

Greenbone Community Edition (OpenVAS) (AGPL-3.0-or-later) uses gvmd as a vulnerability management service that stores results in PostgreSQL, manages users and permissions, and schedules scan tasks. Analysts review results in the Greenbone Security Assistant web interface. These scan records supply the known-vulnerability input CA-5 requires the plan to cover, and recurring scans show whether an item has been resolved. Because AGPL-3.0-or-later applies to modifications you distribute or make available over a network, have counsel review any custom changes before deployment.

CISO Assistant for assessment tracking

CISO Assistant (AGPL-3.0-only) ships more than 200 frameworks, including NIST CSF and ISO 27001, and runs audits and compliance assessments with automatic mapping between frameworks. It can hold the control assessment results and the POA&M entries that link each weakness to a control, an owner and a due date. This creates the link between assessment findings and the authorization package that CA-5 expects. Confirm that the NIST SP 800-53 content, the POA&M object model and the audit workflow in your release match your needs before relying on them.

Connecting tools to the plan owner

Scanner output and assessment results only become CA-5 evidence when a named owner reviews them, assigns remediation, accepts risk or sets milestones. Export or synchronize findings from DefectDojo and Greenbone into the POA&M record, then keep a dated log of each status change. The organization retains responsibility for these decisions, and the tools simply record them. Define who can close an item and what evidence must accompany closure before the integration is built.

Licensing and self-hosting checks

All three tools are open source, but their licenses differ: BSD-3-Clause is permissive, while the AGPL variants carry network-use obligations for modified code. Self-hosting inside your own infrastructure keeps finding data, scan results and assessment records under your control. Ask your procurement or legal team to confirm the license terms that apply to the exact versions you deploy, and whether any add-on modules or integrations change them.

Who owns the POA&M, who can help, and where the auditor stops

Your organization owns the plan of action and milestones. CA-5 places the responsibility for documenting planned remediation on the system's owners and the people who run its assessment and monitoring, so the decisions cannot be handed to a partner or to an auditor. Your team sets the update frequency, which the control requires to be defined, and decides which weaknesses are funded, scheduled, compensated or accepted.

Frequency and triggers: Define how often the plan is updated and which events force an update, such as a new assessment report, an independent audit finding or a significant scan result.
Risk acceptance: Name the officials who may accept a risk and document the rationale, expiry and compensating measures for each accepted item.
Milestones and owners: Assign a named owner, realistic completion dates and a status for every item, and keep the reasons for any date change.
Closure decisions: Close an item only after your own verification shows the weakness is corrected, and keep the closing evidence with the item.
Authorization package: Include the current plan in the package that the authorizing official reviews.

Check that each open item in your plan names an accountable person and an approved decision, not only a ticket status.

Where CA-5 plans usually fall short and how to close each gap

Most CA-5 weaknesses are not technical failures. They are records that do not show who owns a fix, when it will finish, whether it actually closed, and whether the plan was refreshed on schedule. Each card below names one gap, the evidence an assessor typically samples, and the fix that makes that evidence hold up.

Items without an owner or milestone

A POA&M entry that names no accountable role and no dated milestone cannot show that remediation is planned. CA-5 expects the plan to document planned remediation, and assessors commonly check whether each item has a responsible party and a scheduled completion point. Assign a named role to every row, and record interim milestones for anything that will take longer than one cycle. Ask for the owner field on every row before the next assessment.

Audit and monitoring findings missing from the plan

Weaknesses raised in control assessments, independent audits and continuous monitoring reviews sometimes stay in tickets, email or assessor reports and never enter the plan. CA-5 requires the plan to reflect findings from those sources, so an assessor can compare the assessment report against the POA&M and find gaps. Reconcile the two at each assessment close-out and keep a log of which source produced each entry. Scanner output that is triaged and accepted as real should also flow in, not sit unreviewed in a tool.

Closed items without closure evidence

Marking an item complete without retained proof leaves an assessor unable to confirm the weakness was fixed. Closure evidence usually means a changed configuration, a patch record, a retest result or a validated scan, linked to the row and dated. Require that each closure cite the artifact and the person who verified it, and have a second reviewer confirm the evidence before status changes to closed. Scanner rescans and retest reports can serve as this evidence when they are stored with the entry.

Plan not updated at the defined frequency

CA-5 ties updates to a frequency the organization defines, and to events such as new assessments, audits or continuous monitoring results. A plan whose last revision date predates the most recent assessment fails that test even when individual rows are accurate. Confirm the frequency in your own system security plan, set a recurring review that is recorded in the change history, and keep dated versions so an assessor can see the plan changed when findings arrived. Confirm the exact cadence with your authorizing official.

Risk acceptances kept outside the POA&M

When a team decides not to fix a weakness, the decision is often recorded in a risk register, a meeting note or an email, while the POA&M still shows the item as open or drops it. Assessors look for a single trail from the weakness to the decision, so an accepted risk should appear in the plan with its rationale, approver and review date. Link the risk register entry to the POA&M row and require the authorizing official's sign-off for any acceptance that leaves a finding unremediated.

Questions buyers ask about CA-5 cost, effort and outside help

How much does a CA-5 plan of action and milestones cost?

No published price exists for a CA-5 plan of action and milestones (POA&M) on its own, and NIST does not estimate compliance costs in its risk management guidance, so the figure depends on your scope. Most of the cost is people time. Internal owners spend time triaging findings, assigning owners and updating entries at the frequency the organization defines. Outside help, when used, is paid for setup work: collecting findings from scanners and assessment reports, merging them into one register and handing over a process your staff can run. The main drivers are the number of systems in the authorization boundary, the number of open weaknesses, the number of tools feeding findings and how often the plan must be refreshed. The open-source tools in this topic carry open-source licenses, so software licensing is rarely the largest line, but confirm support terms with each vendor. Ask any quote for an itemized written scope, the systems covered, the finding sources, the deliverables, who maintains the plan after handover and what recurring support is included.

How long does it take to set up a POA&M?

The setup time depends on how much assessment and scanning history already exists and how cleanly it is recorded, and no researched duration applies to every organization. Setup usually runs in a fixed sequence: inventory the sources of weaknesses, including the control assessment report, vulnerability scans, continuous monitoring results and any independent audit findings; remove duplicates; assign a named owner and a planned completion date to each item; and agree the update frequency with the authorizing official. Organizations with a single system and clear ownership move faster than those with many boundaries, legacy tickets or disputed findings. CA-5 expects the plan to be updated from assessments, audits and monitoring, so the first build should also include the process for future updates. Because DeployOpen works to a fixed scope agreed in writing before work starts, ask for a timeline tied to named deliverables and dependencies such as access to scanners, ticketing systems and assessor reports, and confirm review milestones with your assessor and authorizing official before you commit.

What does the internal team need to provide for CA-5?

The internal team owns the POA&M and the decisions in it, while an implementation partner can prepare the systems, tools and records. Each weakness needs a named responsible person, usually the system owner or a control owner, and an accountable approver who accepts the risk or the remediation date. The information system security officer or equivalent typically maintains the plan and keeps entries current. Staff must also provide read access to assessment reports, scanner output, ticket history and any monitoring dashboards, plus a decision on who may close an entry. Auditors and assessors need evidence that the people named in the plan are the people who actually hold these responsibilities, so role descriptions and approval records matter as much as the register itself. Before work starts, ask the partner to list which internal roles, approvals and data access the engagement assumes, because gaps in these inputs are the most common cause of delayed or stale plans.

Can a small team run a POA&M without an outside partner?

A small team can run a POA&M in-house if it has clear ownership, a defined update frequency and a single place where findings are recorded. The main difficulty is consistency over time: the same weakness often arrives from several sources, entries go stale after remediation, and closure evidence is scattered. DefectDojo (BSD-3-Clause) can import and reimport findings from many tool report formats and deduplicates them using per-tool hashcode fields, which reduces manual merging. Greenbone Community Edition (AGPL-3.0-or-later) schedules scans, stores results in PostgreSQL and lets users review them in its web interface. These tools handle collection and deduplication, but they do not decide risk acceptance or replace the authorizing official's approval. A small team should consider outside help for initial setup, tool integration, hardening and staff training, then keep routine updates internal. Check the DefectDojo supported tools list against your scanners before you choose.

What will an assessor sample when testing CA-5?

An assessor tests CA-5 by examining the plan, interviewing the people responsible for it and, where a mechanism exists, testing how it is developed and maintained. SP 800-53A lists two determination statements for CA-5 and assigns examine, interview and test methods, with objects such as the control assessment plan, the control assessment report, control assessment evidence, the POA&M itself, and personnel with plan development and implementation responsibilities. In practice, expect the assessor to trace entries back to findings in the assessment report, check owners, dates and status changes, and ask for closure evidence on items marked complete. Illustrative example: if a sampled item reports a missing patch as closed, the assessor would look for the scan showing the patch present and the approval recorded in the plan. Ask your assessor early which samples they will take and how they want the plan delivered, because the format affects how easily they can test it. The CPRT entry for CA-05 is the natural starting point for the control text.

Does CA-5 require automation, and is it in the baselines?

CA-5 has one control enhancement, CA-5(1), which concerns automation support for the accuracy and currency of the plan. SP 800-53B Release 5.2.0 does not select CA-5(1) for the low, moderate, high or privacy baselines, so an organization on those baselines is not required to automate its POA&M under that enhancement. Automation still matters in practice because manual registers drift, and an assessor will sample the plan for currency. CA-5 itself is selected in the low, moderate, high and privacy baselines, so the base control applies regardless of impact level. Before you design tooling, confirm with your authorizing official and assessor whether they accept a spreadsheet, a ticketing export, a GRC record or a machine-readable file, and whether a format change would require re-review. The OSCAL content NIST publishes covers the catalog, the assessment procedures and the baseline profiles, which helps teams trace which controls apply to their system.

Which CSF 2.0 subcategories does CA-5 map to?

NIST's OLIR crosswalk from CSF 2.0 to SP 800-53 Release 5.2.0, marked final and posted on 17 November 2025, maps CA-5 to CSF 2.0 subcategories ID.IM-01, ID.IM-02 and ID.IM-03. These subcategories concern improvement from assessments, audits, tests and operational experience, which is why a POA&M often serves as evidence for more than one framework. NIST marks the crosswalk as not comprehensive, so it is a starting point for mapping, not a full equivalence statement. If you report against CSF 2.0 and SP 800-53 together, record the mapping you rely on, state which version of each framework it covers and have your assessor confirm that it is acceptable for your audience. A single POA&M register with a field for each linked framework control is usually easier to maintain than separate lists per framework. Verify any other framework mapping against its own official source before you cite it in an authorization package.

How DeployOpen sets up CA-5 tracking and prepares its evidence

DeployOpen plans, implements and documents self-hosted open-source platforms inside your own infrastructure, so the plan of action and milestones can be fed by real assessment and scanning output. We prepare the systems, workflow and records that CA-5 depends on, while your organization owns the POA&M and independent assessors issue the findings and reports.

How we scope

Written scope names the systems whose weaknesses will be tracked in the POA&M and their authorization boundary.
Scope lists which assessment, audit and monitoring sources feed the plan, such as control assessment reports and vulnerability scans.
Scope states who in your organization approves POA&M entries, sets update frequency and owns milestone decisions.

How we build

We deploy a self-hosted findings repository and configure import paths from your existing assessment and scanning tools.
We set deduplication rules and required fields so each weakness carries an owner, a source, a status and a milestone.
We connect vulnerability scanning output so known vulnerabilities enter the same tracking record as assessment weaknesses.

How we hand over

Deliverables include the configured tracking system, documented workflow, and a sample POA&M export for your review.
We document the update procedure, including who reviews entries after each assessment, audit or monitoring cycle.
Handover records show test imports, role assignments and evidence locations that an assessor can examine for CA-5.

How we support

Fixed-scope engagements have agreed deliverables and timelines, and changes to scope are agreed in writing.
Ongoing support, upgrades and continuous testing are available as a retainer if your POA&M needs regular maintenance.
We do not issue assessment reports or certifications. Confirm with your independent assessor which POA&M format and fields they expect.