The compliance audit flagged software that's no longer supported

A compensating control buys you one cycle. HeroDevs puts the software back under support and ships the evidence with every fix, so it stops being something you have to answer for.

Software issue FND-0417 open for 1,096 days with unsupported version and assessment cycles, including findings and controls.

Unsupported open source software carrying vulnerabilities is grounds to withhold certification

Your assessor found a package that nobody maintains anymore, and wants to know who patches it and how fast. There is no answer, because end-of-life open source no longer receives security patches from its maintainers and no upstream fix is coming.

The cost is not having the certification at all, which impacts business continuity.

What breaks when upstream patches stop

Security

CVE open, no fix

Compliance

No evidence to show

Roadmap & budget

Migration inserted, speed unplanned

Timeline with green check marks for OSS active support and security patches, transitioning to end-of-life with CVE warnings.

How much unsupported software would an assessor find?

Get a report of every end-of-life dependency across your repositories, direct and transitive.

Software scan summary showing 1701 packages scanned, 218 end-of-life, 1322 not EOL, 157 unknown with risk metrics.

The Problem

Every path to clearing the assessment carries a cost

Write a compensating control

Mitigate around the package and submit a risk acceptance. The assessor decides whether it is enough. You are betting the certification on someone else's judgement, every cycle.

Migrate under a deadline you didn't set

Answers the question properly, and costs a migration nobody budgeted for. Breaking changes across every call site, other packages pinned to the major you are leaving, and a full regression pass, scheduled around an assessment rather than your roadmap.

Have AI patch it

Fast, and increasingly expected. But the assessor is not asking whether the code is fixed, they are asking who maintains it. An AI-generated patch answers neither question, and now nobody has reviewed the code either.

The Solution

Move to a HeroDevs-supported version and clear the audit

A HeroDevs-maintained release replaces the flagged package

A secured release inside the line you already run, maintained for as long as you run the software.

The evidence ships with the fix

Every remediation delivers a VEX statement and a signed attestation, mapped to the frameworks you already report against.

New vulnerabilities keep getting patched

New CVEs against covered packages are patched under a 14-day CVE SLA, so the same question does not come back next cycle.

Why HeroDevs?

19M+

package versions tracked

1,000+

vulnerabilities remediated

900+

enterprise customers secured by HeroDevs

Statista logo

We maintained our security posture without compromising our strategic roadmap, all while achieving substantial cost savings compared to a full migration.

Markus Wolf, Architect @ Statista

Everything you need to clear the audit, documented and filed for you

Bot interface listing files with download icons: two JSON and two PDF attestation documents.

What security and compliance teams ask

Get answers to some of our most commonly asked questions.
Of course, if you can't find the answer you're looking for, feel free to contact us.

What exactly does an assessor get?
Which frameworks does the evidence map to?
Does this actually resolve it, or just document it?
We already have compensating controls in place. Do we still need this?
How fast are new vulnerabilities patched?
Our customers run their own security reviews. Does this help there?

Something not covered here? Talk to an expert.