1. Purpose
The Security Findings Register provides a centralized record for identifying, assessing, assigning, tracking, remediating, and closing information-security findings.
It helps the organization maintain a clear audit trail from:
Finding → Evidence → Risk → Owner → Corrective Action → Verification → Closure
The register may be used for findings identified through:
- Internal audits
- Independent security reviews
- ISO 27001 assessments
- SOC 2 readiness reviews
- Security control testing
- Vulnerability assessments
- Penetration testing
- Cloud security reviews
- Supplier assessments
- Risk assessments
- Incident investigations
- Compliance reviews
- Management reviews
- Security monitoring
- Customer assessments
- Regulatory reviews
2. Core Principle
Identify → Validate → Record → Assess Risk → Assign → Remediate → Verify → Close → Monitor
A finding should remain open until sufficient evidence demonstrates that the agreed corrective action has been completed or an appropriate risk decision has been formally documented.
3. Finding Register
| Finding ID | Date Identified | Source | Area | Finding | Risk | Severity | Owner | Due Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SF-001 | |||||||||
| SF-002 | |||||||||
| SF-003 |
Recommended Status Values
- Open
- Assigned
- In Progress
- Pending Evidence
- Pending Verification
- Closed
- Risk Accepted
- Risk Transferred
- Deferred
- Rejected/Invalidated
4. Finding Identification
Finding Information
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Finding ID | |
| Finding Title | |
| Date Identified | |
| Identified By | |
| Reviewer/Assessor | |
| Source | |
| Review/Assessment ID | |
| Business Owner | |
| Security Owner | |
| Department | |
| System/Asset | |
| Environment | ☐ Production ☐ Test ☐ Development ☐ Corporate |
| Location |
5. Finding Source
Select the source of the finding.
☐ Internal Audit
☐ Independent Security Review
☐ ISO 27001 Assessment
☐ SOC 2 Assessment
☐ Control Testing
☐ Vulnerability Assessment
☐ Penetration Testing
☐ Cloud Security Review
☐ Supplier Assessment
☐ Risk Assessment
☐ Security Incident
☐ Security Monitoring
☐ Compliance Review
☐ Customer Assessment
☐ Regulatory Review
☐ Management Review
☐ Employee/Security Report
☐ Other: ______________________
Source Reference
Assessment, audit, incident, ticket, report, or other reference.
6. Finding Area
☐ Governance
☐ Risk Management
☐ Asset Management
☐ Information Classification
☐ Access Control
☐ Privileged Access
☐ Authentication/MFA
☐ Cloud Security
☐ Network Security
☐ Endpoint Security
☐ Application Security
☐ Source Code Security
☐ Vulnerability Management
☐ Patch Management
☐ Logging and Monitoring
☐ Incident Management
☐ Backup and Recovery
☐ Business Continuity
☐ Supplier Security
☐ Privacy/Data Protection
☐ Security Awareness
☐ Physical Security
☐ Change Management
☐ Configuration Management
☐ Cryptography
☐ Secrets Management
☐ Information Retention
☐ AI Security
☐ Legal/Regulatory Compliance
☐ Contractual Security
☐ Other: ______________________
7. Requirement or Criteria
Every significant finding should be linked to the requirement, control objective, policy, procedure, risk, or assessment criterion against which the condition was identified.
Requirement
Reference
Requirement/Control ID: ______________________
Policy/Procedure: ____________________________
Contract/Regulation: __________________________
Assessment Criterion: _________________________
8. Finding Description
Condition
Describe what was actually observed.
Expected Condition
Describe what should have been in place.
Evidence
Identify the evidence supporting the finding.
Evidence Reference
| Evidence ID | Evidence Description | Date/Period |
|---|---|---|
9. Finding Classification
Use the organization’s approved finding methodology.
Severity
☐ Critical
☐ High
☐ Medium
☐ Low
☐ Observation
☐ Opportunity for Improvement
Severity Rationale
Explain why the finding received this classification.
10. Risk Assessment
Assess the risk created by the finding.
Potential Impact
Consider:
- Confidentiality
- Integrity
- Availability
- Privacy
- Regulatory compliance
- Customer impact
- Financial impact
- Operational impact
- Reputational impact
- Contractual impact
Likelihood
☐ Rare
☐ Unlikely
☐ Possible
☐ Likely
☐ Almost Certain
Impact
☐ Insignificant
☐ Minor
☐ Moderate
☐ Major
☐ Severe
Risk Rating
Likelihood: __________________
Impact: ______________________
Risk Level: __________________
11. Risk Statement
Document the risk in a clear format.
Because [condition], there is a risk that [threat/event] could result in [impact].
Example
Because privileged AWS access is not consistently reviewed, there is a risk that unnecessary privileged access could remain active and be misused, potentially resulting in unauthorized changes to production resources.
12. Affected Assets and Information
| Asset/System | Information | Classification | Owner | Criticality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
13. Root Cause
Where sufficient information is available, identify the underlying cause.
Root Cause Category
☐ Process
☐ People
☐ Technology
☐ Configuration
☐ Training/Awareness
☐ Governance
☐ Documentation
☐ Supplier
☐ Resource Constraint
☐ Change Management
☐ Design
☐ Monitoring
☐ Other: ______________________
Root Cause Description
Avoid treating the immediate symptom as the root cause where further analysis is necessary.
14. Contributing Factors
Identify factors that contributed to the finding.
☐ Lack of ownership
☐ Inadequate process
☐ Inadequate training
☐ Technology limitation
☐ Configuration error
☐ Incomplete monitoring
☐ Insufficient resources
☐ Supplier dependency
☐ Process not followed
☐ Process not defined
☐ Other: ______________________
Details
15. Existing Controls
Document controls that already reduce the risk.
| Existing Control | Effectiveness | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
Existing Mitigations
16. Immediate Risk Treatment
Where the finding creates an immediate risk, document temporary action.
| Action | Owner | Date | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
Temporary Control
17. Corrective Action
Define the action required to address the finding.
Corrective Action
Corrective Action Objective
Describe the intended outcome.
Action Owner
Name: ______________________
Role: _______________________
Department: _________________
Target Date
18. Corrective Action Plan
| Action ID | Action | Owner | Priority | Due Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA-001 | |||||
| CA-002 | |||||
| CA-003 |
19. Remediation Evidence
Document evidence demonstrating that corrective action was implemented.
| Evidence | Description | Date | Provided By | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Examples:
- Updated configuration
- Access review
- Policy approval
- Security test
- Ticket closure
- Screenshot
- System report
- Training record
- Updated procedure
- Monitoring evidence
- Retest result
Sensitive credentials and secret values should not be stored in the register.
20. Verification
Corrective actions should be verified before the finding is closed where appropriate.
Verification Method
☐ Evidence review
☐ Retesting
☐ Configuration review
☐ Sampling
☐ Interview
☐ Observation
☐ Technical validation
☐ Follow-up audit
☐ Other: ______________________
Verification Result
☐ Effective
☐ Partially Effective
☐ Ineffective
☐ Further Evidence Required
Verification Notes
Verified By: ______________________
Verification Date: _________________
21. Residual Risk
After remediation, reassess the remaining risk.
Original Risk: _____________________
Residual Risk: _____________________
Residual Risk Level
☐ Low
☐ Medium
☐ High
☐ Critical
Residual Risk Rationale
22. Risk Treatment Decision
☐ Reduce
☐ Avoid
☐ Transfer/Share
☐ Accept
Risk Acceptance Required?
☐ Yes
☐ No
If yes:
Risk Owner: ______________________
Approval Date: ___________________
Risk Acceptance Reference: ________
23. Finding Status
Current Status
☐ Open
☐ Assigned
☐ In Progress
☐ Pending Evidence
☐ Pending Verification
☐ Closed
☐ Risk Accepted
☐ Deferred
☐ Invalidated
Status Date
Status Comments
24. Finding Closure
A finding may be closed when:
☐ Corrective action completed
☐ Required evidence received
☐ Evidence reviewed
☐ Corrective action verified
☐ Residual risk assessed
☐ Risk acceptance completed where applicable
☐ Finding status updated
☐ Closure approved where required
Closure Statement
Closed By: ______________________
Closure Date: ___________________
Closure Evidence Reference: ______
25. Overdue Findings
The organization should monitor findings that exceed their agreed target dates.
| Finding ID | Owner | Due Date | Days Overdue | Reason | Escalation | New Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Escalation
Overdue significant findings should be escalated according to the organization’s risk-management and governance process.
26. Finding Aging
Track how long findings remain open.
| Finding ID | Date Identified | Current Date | Age | Severity | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aging Categories
| Age | Category |
|---|---|
| 0–30 days | Current |
| 31–60 days | Aging |
| 61–90 days | Extended |
| 91–180 days | Long Outstanding |
| >180 days | Management Attention |
The organization may define different thresholds based on its risk methodology.
27. Findings by Severity
| Severity | Open | In Progress | Pending Verification | Closed | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | |||||
| High | |||||
| Medium | |||||
| Low | |||||
| Observation |
28. Findings by Source
| Source | Open | Closed | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Internal Audit | |||
| Independent Review | |||
| Vulnerability Assessment | |||
| Penetration Test | |||
| Supplier Assessment | |||
| Incident | |||
| Control Testing | |||
| Other |
29. Findings by Security Area
| Security Area | Open | Closed | High/Critical |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access Control | |||
| Cloud Security | |||
| Application Security | |||
| Vulnerability Management | |||
| Incident Management | |||
| Supplier Security | |||
| Data Protection | |||
| Business Continuity | |||
| Other |
30. Recurring Findings
Identify findings that have occurred repeatedly.
| Finding Area | Previous Finding | Current Finding | Recurrence | Root Cause |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Recurrence Assessment
☐ No recurrence
☐ Similar issue identified
☐ Recurring issue
☐ Systemic issue
Recurring findings should be considered for deeper root-cause analysis and management attention.
31. Risk Trend
Track whether security findings indicate an improving or deteriorating control environment.
Trend
☐ Improving
☐ Stable
☐ Increasing Risk
☐ Mixed
☐ Unable to Determine
Trend Analysis
32. Management Summary
Key Findings
Significant Risks
Overdue Actions
Recurring Issues
Management Actions Required
33. Security Findings Dashboard
Key Metrics
Total Findings: __________
Open Findings: __________
High/Critical Open Findings: __________
Overdue Findings: __________
Closed During Period: __________
Average Closure Time: __________
Recurring Findings: __________
Management Indicators
| Metric | Current | Previous Period | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total findings | |||
| Open findings | |||
| High/Critical findings | |||
| Overdue findings | |||
| Average closure time | |||
| Recurring findings |
34. Security Finding Record — Detailed Template
Use the following record for each significant finding.
Finding ID
SF-____
Basic Information
Title: ______________________________
Date Identified: _____________________
Source: _____________________________
Review/Assessment ID: _______________
Area: _______________________________
System/Asset: _______________________
Requirement
Condition
Evidence
Risk
Severity
☐ Critical ☐ High ☐ Medium ☐ Low ☐ Observation
Root Cause
Existing Controls
Corrective Action
Owner
Target Date
Remediation Evidence
Verification
Residual Risk
Risk Treatment
Final Status
Closure Approval
Name: ______________________________
Date: ______________________________
35. AWS SaaS Startup Example
Finding
Finding ID: SF-001
Title: Privileged AWS access review evidence incomplete
Source: Independent Security Review
Area: Access Control / Cloud Security
System: AWS Production
Severity: Medium
Requirement
The organization’s privileged-access procedure requires periodic review of privileged accounts.
Condition
One sampled privileged AWS account did not have sufficient evidence demonstrating completion of the required periodic access review.
Evidence
- AWS IAM account listing
- Privileged-access register
- Access review records
Risk
Unnecessary privileged access could remain active without timely detection, increasing the risk of unauthorized administrative activity.
Existing Controls
- MFA enabled
- Individual AWS identities
- IAM policies
- CloudTrail logging
Root Cause
The access-review process did not consistently capture evidence for all privileged accounts.
Corrective Action
Perform a complete privileged-access review and update the access-review process to ensure evidence is consistently retained.
Owner: Head of Engineering
Target Date: 15 November 2026
Verification
Reviewer will inspect:
- Updated access review
- AWS IAM account list
- Review approval
- Evidence-retention mechanism
Closure Condition
Finding may be closed once the corrective action is implemented and evidence demonstrates that the control is operating as intended.
36. Startup-Friendly Finding Management
Startups should avoid creating an unnecessarily complicated finding-management process.
Minimum Required Fields
For every finding, maintain:
- Finding ID
- Source
- Requirement
- Finding description
- Evidence
- Risk
- Severity
- Owner
- Corrective action
- Due date
- Verification
- Status
- Closure evidence
Practical Workflow
Identify → Record → Risk Rate → Assign → Fix → Evidence → Verify → Close
For critical or high-risk findings, add:
- Root-cause analysis
- Immediate risk treatment
- Management escalation
- Residual-risk assessment
- Formal risk acceptance where applicable
37. Finding Management Rules
The organization should establish basic rules for the register.
Rule 1 — Every Finding Has an Owner
No significant finding should remain unassigned.
Rule 2 — Every Finding Has Evidence
Findings should be supported by sufficient evidence.
Rule 3 — Every Significant Finding Has a Risk Assessment
The organization should understand the potential impact of leaving the issue unresolved.
Rule 4 — Every Finding Has a Target Date
Target dates should reflect severity and risk.
Rule 5 — Closure Requires Evidence
A ticket marked “resolved” should not automatically mean the security finding is closed.
Rule 6 — Verify Significant Remediation
High-risk findings should normally receive independent or appropriately separated verification before closure.
Rule 7 — Risk Acceptance Is Not Finding Closure by Default
Where risk is accepted, retain the finding and record the formal risk-acceptance decision according to the organization’s process.
Rule 8 — Recurring Findings Require Attention
Repeated findings may indicate a systemic control weakness.
38. Common Mistakes
Avoid:
- Recording findings without evidence.
- Assigning findings without an owner.
- Using vague descriptions such as “security needs improvement.”
- Closing findings based only on verbal confirmation.
- Ignoring overdue findings.
- Treating every finding as the same severity.
- Failing to identify the underlying requirement.
- Fixing symptoms without addressing root causes.
- Closing findings without verification.
- Losing evidence supporting closure.
- Accepting risk without documented authorization.
- Creating duplicate findings for the same underlying issue.
- Allowing recurring findings to remain unresolved.
- Storing passwords, API keys, private keys, or other secrets in the register.
39. Relationship With Other ISMS Documents
| Document | Relationship |
|---|---|
| Information Security Review Report | Generates findings |
| Independent Review Report | Generates independent-review findings |
| Internal Audit Report | Generates audit findings |
| Security Control Testing Register | Records control-test results |
| Vulnerability Register | Tracks technical vulnerabilities |
| Risk Register | Tracks organizational risks |
| Corrective Action Tracker | Tracks remediation actions |
| Risk Acceptance Register | Records accepted risks |
| Incident Register | Tracks security incidents |
| Supplier Assessment | Generates supplier findings |
| Management Review | Reviews significant findings |
| ISMS Improvement Log | Tracks broader improvements |
40. ISO/IEC 27001 Connection
A Security Findings Register supports the organization’s ability to maintain evidence of identified weaknesses, corrective actions, risk treatment, and continual improvement.
The register itself is not a universally prescribed ISO/IEC 27001 form. Its structure, severity model, ownership, target dates, verification requirements, and retention should be aligned with the organization’s:
- ISMS
- Risk-management methodology
- Internal audit process
- Corrective-action process
- Security review process
- Legal/regulatory obligations
- Contractual requirements
- Business requirements
41. Audit Evidence
Retain appropriate evidence such as:
☐ Finding record
☐ Requirement reference
☐ Review/audit report
☐ Supporting evidence
☐ Risk assessment
☐ Root-cause analysis
☐ Corrective-action plan
☐ Remediation evidence
☐ Verification evidence
☐ Risk acceptance
☐ Closure approval
☐ Management escalation
☐ Trend analysis
Evidence should be protected from unauthorized modification and access.
42. Final Security Findings Audit Trail
For every significant finding, the organization should be able to demonstrate:
What was found?
When was it found?
Who identified it?
What requirement was not met or what weakness was observed?
What evidence supports the finding?
What risk does it create?
How serious is the risk?
Who owns the issue?
What corrective action was agreed?
When should it be completed?
What evidence demonstrates remediation?
Who verified the remediation?
What residual risk remains?
Was risk acceptance required?
When and how was the finding closed?
Final Principle
A finding is not closed because someone says it is fixed. It is closed when the organization has sufficient evidence that the agreed action was implemented, the result was verified, and the remaining risk has been appropriately addressed.