ServiceNow CIS-VR Exam Dumps & Practice Test Questions
Question No 1:
What is the designated prefix used for all components such as tables, records, and scripts within ServiceNow's Vulnerability Response module?
A. cmn_vul
B. vul
C. sn_vul
D. x_vul
Correct Answer: C. sn_vul
Explanation:
ServiceNow uses structured naming conventions across its platform to maintain clarity, reduce confusion, and make application components easily identifiable. Each module within the system, including tables, records, workflows, and scripts, is assigned a unique prefix. These prefixes not only help developers and system administrators manage the vast ecosystem of ServiceNow applications but also enable upgrades and troubleshooting without conflict among modules.
For the Vulnerability Response application, the official prefix is sn_vul. Here, "sn" stands for ServiceNow, and "vul" represents vulnerability. This standardized prefix ensures that all components, whether system tables, business rules, or script includes, are recognized as belonging to the Vulnerability Response suite. This is particularly important in environments where multiple ServiceNow applications are installed, such as Security Incident Response, ITSM, and Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC).
The prefix helps filter and search through relevant data more effectively. For example, tables like sn_vul_vulnerability or sn_vul_vulnerable_item can be quickly identified and accessed by developers working specifically within the vulnerability management domain. Additionally, this naming strategy supports system integrity by preventing accidental overlap with similarly named components from other modules or custom applications.
Why the other options are incorrect:
A. cmn_vul – The prefix "cmn" typically relates to common or shared components across the platform but is not specific to the Vulnerability Response application.
B. vul – While "vul" might appear in some table names as a substring, it is not a complete or recognized ServiceNow namespace prefix.
D. x_vul – This type of prefix is reserved for custom-scoped applications created by developers outside of ServiceNow's core offerings. It does not apply to out-of-the-box modules like Vulnerability Response.
In summary, understanding and using the correct prefix such as sn_vul ensures proper identification, customization, and integration of Vulnerability Response components within the ServiceNow ecosystem.
Question No 2:
Which vulnerability maturity stage incorporates advanced owner assignment, and why is this essential for successful vulnerability management?
A. Enterprise risk trending
B. Automated prioritization
C. Manual operations
D. Improved remediation
Correct Answer: B. Automated prioritization
Explanation:
As organizations develop their vulnerability management processes, they progress through various maturity levels. These stages reflect how efficiently and intelligently the organization can detect, evaluate, and respond to security threats.
The automated prioritization stage is where advanced features such as dynamic owner assignment come into play. In this phase, vulnerabilities are automatically evaluated and routed to appropriate individuals or teams based on criteria like impact, severity, asset sensitivity, or expertise required. This automation streamlines operations, removes manual bottlenecks, and ensures that vulnerabilities are handled promptly by the right personnel.
Advanced owner assignment is essential because it establishes accountability, reduces remediation delays, and helps integrate vulnerability response into broader security operations. By automatically notifying assigned owners, organizations can enhance their responsiveness and minimize exposure from unaddressed security issues.
The other stages focus on different aspects:
Enterprise risk trending centers around analyzing long-term risk patterns, not individual ownership.
Manual operations represent early-stage processes with high reliance on manual tasks.
Improved remediation focuses on better strategies for fixing issues but does not necessarily include automated assignment of responsibility.
Thus, automated prioritization is the maturity level that introduces advanced owner assignment, a critical capability for efficient and scalable vulnerability management.
Question No 3:
Which application is designed to align security incidents with organizational controls and automatically evaluate their potential effect on other business operations?
A. Performance Analytics
B. Event Management
C. Governance, Risk, and Compliance
D. Service Mapping
Correct Answer: C. Governance, Risk, and Compliance
Explanation:
Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) is the most appropriate application for aligning security incidents with company-wide controls while simultaneously evaluating the potential impact across business functions. GRC platforms integrate risk, governance, and compliance management into one framework, helping organizations operate securely and efficiently.
Risk management capabilities in GRC allow security events to be tied to specific organizational controls, enabling teams to understand how such events could disrupt operations beyond IT. This function supports informed decision-making by offering clear visibility into risk impact and priority.
Governance features ensure that the response to security issues aligns with company policies, standards, and regulatory obligations. This alignment guarantees that preventative and corrective actions are not just reactive but strategically consistent with organizational goals.
Compliance tools in GRC help maintain adherence to external laws and internal policies. When security incidents occur, GRC assesses their compliance ramifications, enabling quick, data-driven responses to avoid violations or penalties.
GRC platforms also provide automated impact analysis, offering immediate insight into how a vulnerability or threat in one domain could affect others, such as HR, finance, or customer service. This is essential for risk containment and business continuity.
Other tools like Performance Analytics (A) and Event Management (B) have more specialized scopes and do not provide comprehensive risk and compliance integration. Service Mapping (D), while valuable for visualizing dependencies in IT services, is not intended for holistic risk and impact evaluation.
In essence, GRC offers the necessary capabilities to align, assess, and act upon security events in the broader organizational context.
Question No 4:
What happens when a vulnerable item is marked as ignored in vulnerability management?
A. It permanently removes the item from the list of Active Vulnerable Items
B. It moves the item to the Slushbucket
C. It has no impact on the list of Active Vulnerable Items
D. It temporarily removes the item from the list of Active Vulnerable Items
Correct Answer: D. Temporarily removes the item from the list of Active Vulnerable Items
Explanation:
In the context of vulnerability management, choosing to ignore a vulnerable item does not eliminate it from consideration entirely. Instead, it is temporarily removed from the list of active vulnerabilities. This allows security teams to focus on higher-priority issues while maintaining the ability to revisit the ignored item later.
Marking an item as ignored is a strategic decision that signifies it does not currently require remediation. However, the vulnerability remains tracked in the system and can be reactivated if circumstances change or further analysis is required.
Option A is incorrect because ignoring does not result in permanent removal. The item remains in the system’s records and can reappear in reports or dashboards depending on future evaluations.
Option B, which refers to moving the item to the Slushbucket, may apply in specific systems but is not universally true for all vulnerability management processes. The Slushbucket is typically used for deferred decisions, not necessarily for ignored vulnerabilities.
Option C incorrectly suggests that ignoring has no impact, which fails to recognize that the action does indeed remove the item from the list of active issues, even if temporarily.
In short, ignoring a vulnerable item helps prioritize resources by temporarily filtering out lower-risk or non-critical issues, while preserving the ability to reassess them later as needed.
Question No 5:
What is necessary to ensure that Vulnerability Exceptions are managed properly within an organization’s security operations?
A. An Approval by Default
B. An Exception Workflow
C. A GRC Integration
D. A Filter Group
Correct Answer: B. An Exception Workflow
Explanation:
Vulnerability exceptions refer to situations where known vulnerabilities are not immediately remediated due to operational or business constraints. To handle these exceptions effectively, organizations need a clearly defined and controlled process.
An exception workflow serves this purpose by formalizing how exceptions are submitted, evaluated, approved, and reviewed. This structured process ensures consistency and minimizes the risk of unmanaged security exposures.
Standardization and Control: A workflow brings uniformity in handling exceptions, ensuring that each case goes through an identical review and approval process.
Risk Evaluation and Oversight: It includes assessing the risks associated with the vulnerability and securing approvals from stakeholders, such as security teams or risk officers.
Record Keeping and Accountability: It documents all decisions, justifications, and mitigation timelines, which are essential for audits and ongoing risk assessments.
Why the other choices are not suitable:
A. An Approval by Default undermines security by allowing vulnerabilities without evaluation.
C. A GRC Integration can support exception handling but is not the core requirement for managing exceptions.
D. A Filter Group is used for organizing data or assets, not for managing exceptions directly.
The most effective method to process vulnerability exceptions is through a structured exception workflow that incorporates evaluation, accountability, and traceability.
Question No 6:
Following best practices, which field should be used to assign the Assigned To value when creating a Change Task from a Vulnerable Item?
A. Assigned To on Vulnerable Item
B. Managed By on CMDB_CI
C. Assigned To on CMDB_CI Record
D. Best Practice does not dictate a specific field
Correct Answer: C. Assigned To on CMDB_CI Record
Explanation:
When a Change Task is created in response to a Vulnerable Item in a service management environment, the assignment of responsibility should align with the asset owner responsible for the affected system or configuration.
The Assigned To field on the CMDB_CI Record indicates who is directly responsible for the configuration item associated with the vulnerability. Assigning the Change Task to this individual ensures accountability and aligns the change effort with the person most familiar with the asset.
Option A uses the Vulnerable Item’s Assigned To field, but this may not represent the appropriate person responsible for the configuration item.
Option B refers to the Managed By field, which typically represents oversight or leadership rather than operational ownership.
Option D is inaccurate because industry best practices do suggest using the CMDB_CI's Assigned To field to guide responsibility for remediation actions.
Assigning the task to the CMDB_CI record’s responsible party improves traceability and ensures that the change process is managed by the appropriate stakeholder.
Question No 7:
In the context of how ServiceNow's Vulnerability Response application handles approvals for changes made to resolve discovered vulnerabilities,
which table is specifically responsible for storing these approval records within the vulnerability workflow?
A sys_approval and sn_vul_vulnerable_item tables
B sn_vul_vulnerable_item and sn_vul_vulnerability tables
C sn_vul_change_approval table
D sys_approval table
Correct Answer: C
Explanation:
In ServiceNow’s Vulnerability Response application, managing the approval process for remediation actions is essential to ensure that only authorized changes are implemented in response to security threats. These changes can include patch deployments, configuration modifications, or any form of mitigation designed to reduce the risk posed by a vulnerability.
To track and enforce such approvals, ServiceNow utilizes a specific table within the Vulnerability Response module: the sn_vul_change_approval table. This table is purpose-built to handle and record approval data related specifically to change requests stemming from vulnerability records. It logs essential metadata including approver identities, current approval status (such as requested, approved, rejected), timestamps, and related change request identifiers.
Unlike the more general sys_approval table, which serves as a universal approval record store for various modules across the ServiceNow platform, sn_vul_change_approval is tailored to the unique needs of vulnerability workflows. It works in conjunction with other vulnerability-specific tables such as sn_vul_vulnerable_item and sn_vul_vulnerability, but those do not handle approvals.
The sn_vul_vulnerable_item table keeps track of configuration items that are identified as vulnerable, linking them to specific vulnerabilities and tracking their remediation status. Meanwhile, the sn_vul_vulnerability table contains detailed information about the nature and origin of each vulnerability itself. Neither of these tables stores approval records.
The sys_approval table can be part of custom workflows, but by default, it does not serve the same focused role as sn_vul_change_approval when it comes to vulnerability remediation processes. Therefore, while sys_approval may be used generically, it lacks the context-specific structure that sn_vul_change_approval provides for tracking the approvals necessary to take security-related actions in the system.
Recognizing the distinction between general-purpose and module-specific approval tables is crucial for anyone configuring or maintaining the Vulnerability Response application, especially when setting up workflows that must adhere to organizational compliance and authorization requirements. Thus, sn_vul_change_approval is the correct and most relevant table in this context.
Question No 8:
When collaborating with an organization that already has a documented vulnerability exception process, especially one with diagrams or visual workflows,
what is the main advantage of integrating that documentation into an automated system?
A It serves as an ideal chance to evaluate and enhance their current procedures
B It helps in gaining a clear understanding of their internal exception handling processes
C It allows for direct implementation of the documented process into the automated workflow or platform
D It provides no significant benefit in the process translation or workflow creation
Correct Answer: C
Explanation:
Having a well-defined and clearly documented vulnerability exception process is highly advantageous when integrating that process into an automation platform or system. The primary benefit is that the documentation serves as a reliable reference point, enabling developers, architects, or administrators to directly translate the documented process into an automated format without unnecessary delays, assumptions, or misinterpretations.
When organizations create visual representations such as flowcharts, decision trees, or state diagrams to outline their exception workflows, they are essentially producing a ready-to-implement blueprint. This type of documentation often details who is involved at each step, what conditions must be met to move forward, required approvals, exception triggers, and fallback procedures. Such clarity streamlines automation development by reducing the time typically spent discovering and validating business logic. The technical team can begin implementation immediately or use the documentation as a foundation for proposing refined, more efficient versions of the process.
This benefit becomes even more prominent in enterprise settings where compliance, consistency, and auditability are critical. Automated workflows based on documented procedures can enforce adherence to security and governance policies while also improving process transparency and audit tracking.
Although understanding a client’s internal processes (option B) and identifying areas for improvement (option A) are certainly useful byproducts of reviewing their documentation, these are not the primary benefits in this context. The main advantage lies in the ability to use the documentation as-is to implement an automated, systematized version of the process.
Option D is clearly incorrect because documentation always supports smoother translation into digital workflows. It eliminates ambiguity, reduces reliance on verbal explanations or tribal knowledge, and ensures that what’s built mirrors what the business expects.
In sum, the key advantage of a documented vulnerability exception process is that it enables fast, accurate, and efficient automation, making option C the best and most accurate choice.
Question No 9:
Which role is necessary to create and modify Service Level Agreements (SLAs) specifically for Vulnerability Response groups?
A. sla_manager
B. admin
C. sn_vul.vulnerability_write
D. sn_vul.admin
Correct Answer: D. sn_vul.admin
Explanation:
In the ServiceNow platform, the ability to manage Service Level Agreements (SLAs) is governed by role-based access controls to ensure that only authorized users can configure and enforce time-bound remediation policies. Within the Vulnerability Response application, SLAs are critical in tracking how quickly vulnerabilities are addressed once identified, and they serve as key performance indicators for cybersecurity response efficiency.
The sn_vul.admin role is specifically designed to empower administrators managing the Vulnerability Response application. This role includes privileges to configure application-level settings, including the creation, modification, and management of SLAs tied directly to vulnerability records and response groups. With this role, users can define SLA definitions, attach them to appropriate vulnerability groups, monitor breach conditions, and ensure alignment with compliance mandates or internal security policies.
While the sla_manager role does enable general SLA management in the platform, it lacks the permissions scoped to the Vulnerability Response module. Users with sla_manager cannot access or modify SLAs that are tightly integrated with vulnerability-specific workflows unless granted additional roles.
Similarly, the admin role in ServiceNow offers wide-reaching administrative privileges across the platform but does not automatically include scoped access to every specialized application like Vulnerability Response. Without the correct scoped role, even admins may encounter access restrictions when working within application-specific configurations.
The sn_vul.vulnerability_write role allows users to create and edit vulnerability records, manage remediation workflows, and engage with other core components of the module. However, it does not provide access to configuration items like SLA definitions.
Because SLAs in the Vulnerability Response context are tied to sensitive and critical operational timelines, they require a role with specific authority over the module. The sn_vul.admin role ensures a user can not only view but fully manage SLA logic, associate them with conditions such as priority or vulnerability group, and automate actions upon SLA breach. This granular control is essential for maintaining a responsive, auditable, and compliant vulnerability management process.
By assigning this role to appropriate personnel, organizations can establish structured timelines for remediation efforts, reduce risk exposure, and demonstrate proactive cybersecurity governance.
Question No 10:
In the context of ServiceNow's Vulnerability Response, what is the purpose of the 'Remediation target' field on a Vulnerable Item (VIT) record?
A. Indicates when the vulnerability was last updated
B. Specifies the expected timeframe for remediation
C. Denotes the current status of the remediation process
D. Marks the date when the vulnerability was closed
Correct Answer: B. Specifies the expected timeframe for remediation
Explanation:
The 'Remediation target' field on a Vulnerable Item (VIT) record in ServiceNow's Vulnerability Response application is a critical component used to manage and track the timely resolution of security vulnerabilities. This field defines the expected date by which the vulnerability should be remediated. It serves as a goal or deadline that guides the efforts of security and IT teams in resolving threats before they evolve into significant security breaches.
By setting a remediation target, organizations can prioritize vulnerability response based on business risk, threat intelligence, severity scores (such as CVSS), and compliance obligations. For example, high-risk vulnerabilities affecting critical assets may be given shorter remediation timelines, while lower-risk issues might be scheduled further out. These targets can be automatically set using business rules or SLAs configured in the Vulnerability Response module.
Having clearly defined remediation targets also enables better operational oversight. Security managers can generate reports and dashboards showing which vulnerabilities are approaching or have exceeded their target dates, supporting proactive decision-making and continuous monitoring. This functionality is vital for audit readiness and regulatory compliance, especially when dealing with frameworks such as ISO 27001, PCI DSS, or HIPAA, which often mandate timely remediation of known vulnerabilities.
Option A refers to the 'Updated' field, which simply logs the last change made to the record. Option C reflects the current state of the remediation process, managed through the 'Remediation status' field (e.g., 'New,' 'In Progress,' 'Mitigated'). Option D is associated with the 'Closed' field, which only records the closure date of the item once the remediation is completed.
In summary, the 'Remediation target' field provides a structured way to manage time-sensitive remediation efforts, ensuring vulnerabilities are addressed within acceptable risk windows and aligning security practices with broader organizational goals.
