Skip to content
Welcome, thoughtbot's Giant Robots listeners!Start here
Cybersecurity: Threats and Defences
12OCT

Phase II asks agencies for paperwork

2 min read
10:55UTC

BOD 26-04's second checkpoint falls around 9 August and requires agencies only to update internal procedures and hand copies to CISA on request. No public filing exists, and the directive provides no way to name an agency that misses it.

TechnologyAssessed
Key takeaway

The August checkpoint produces internal documents only; December is the first stage with a checkable obligation.

BOD 26-04 requires federal agencies to update their internal vulnerability-management procedures and furnish copies to CISA on request, a step falling due 60 days after the directive's 10 June issuance and therefore around 9 August⁠1. A Binding Operational Directive is a compulsory instruction CISA may issue to federal civilian agencies; this one was issued on 10 June and revoked the fixed-deadline regime that preceded it. The directive runs in three stages. Phase I applied immediately on issuance and required agencies to keep monitoring the catalogue and continue routine hygiene scanning. Phase III lands at 180 days, around mid-December, and is where remediation tagging becomes binding.

Read the text of the August stage carefully and the enforcement question answers itself. No public compliance filing exists at this stage, and nothing in the directive provides for identifying an agency that fails it. The documents produced will circulate between an agency and CISA, on request, and nowhere else. A security chief hoping to benchmark a private estate against the federal one therefore has nothing to benchmark against until the December stage produces tagging that can actually be checked.

That conclusion has a different footing from the deadline arithmetic elsewhere in this briefing. Whether the shortening of federal patch windows reflects doctrine or the mix of products being exploited is arguable, and more months of data could settle it either way. What the August checkpoint requires comes from the instrument itself, which does not change with the next register update.

This beat told readers in its last briefing to watch whether CISA would name a non-compliant agency at this checkpoint. The directive's text carries no such mechanism, and that expectation was ours rather than the document's.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

In June, the US government's cyber-defence agency, CISA, replaced its old system of fixed patch deadlines with a new three-stage plan. The second stage, due around 9 August, asks federal agencies to update their internal policies for handling security flaws and show CISA the paperwork if asked. That's all this stage requires. It doesn't produce a public report card, and CISA has no built-in way to name an agency that falls short at this point. Anyone expecting a public reckoning here will be looking in the wrong place: the directive's actual enforcement teeth, if any, wait until its third stage, roughly mid-December.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

Phase II is a paperwork gate by design: BOD 26-04 structures compliance in three phases, immediate KEV monitoring, a 60-day procedural update, and 180-day full remediation tagging, and only the last phase touches the remediation record CISA could use to name a lagging agency publicly.

The absence of a public compliance filing at Phase II is not a gap CISA needs to fix; it is how the directive was written from the start. A checkpoint built around internal documentation, provided to CISA only on request, structurally cannot produce the kind of public naming its predecessor's fixed deadlines made visible by omission.

What could happen next?
  • Meaning

    Phase II's due-around-9-August date will not produce a public compliance report, so absence of news at that date is not evidence of anything.

  • Opportunity

    Phase III's mid-December remediation-tagging deadline is the point where public accountability, if it comes at all under this directive, would actually surface.

First Reported In

Update #12 · KEV deadlines fell from 14 days to three

CISA· 3 Aug 2026
Read original →
Causes and effects
This Event
Phase II asks agencies for paperwork
Anyone waiting for the August checkpoint to reveal which agencies are keeping pace with the shortened deadlines will get nothing until December.
Different Perspectives
ENISA
ENISA
ENISA's 22 September threat report found only 23.8 per cent of NoName057(16)'s assessed claims were confirmed by independent availability checks, though the group produced 48 per cent of ideology-driven activity. The agency's numbers show public administration taking 31.8 per cent of attacks, mostly ideological DDoS.
LKA Hamburg
LKA Hamburg
Hamburg's State Criminal Police Office led the operation that took the KillSec leak site on 30 September, with ten countries, Europol and Eurojust. Investigators link the group to around 1,000 suspected attacks, at least 70 in Germany, and the seizure blocks access to at least 110 terabytes of victims' data.
ASOS
ASOS
ASOS said an unauthorised party reached names and contact details on third-party platforms after obtaining an employee's credentials by impersonating a trusted contact. It said it does not believe payment cards or account passwords were affected, and is investigating.
Check Point
Check Point
Check Point updated its advisory on 20 September to say its 9.8-rated VPN certificate flaw had been exploited on Spark firewalls since 12 September, five days after the advisory first appeared, and shipped fixes including R81.20 Take 166. It told customers using only pre-shared-key VPN communities they were not exposed.
Japan's National Police Agency
Japan's National Police Agency
Japan's National Police Agency and National Cybersecurity Office signed advisory AA26-281A and published it on 9 October, naming SoftEther VPN, MicroScan and office-cli and indicators detected since January 2016. Tokyo says the evidence comes from several FBI criminal investigations and that it will deepen cooperation with allies.
CISA
CISA
CISA gave federal agencies three days to fix five flaws from 2015 to 2023 on the day the China advisory named Integrity Technology Group, and set the same clock on 34 of 43 September listings. It treats a named state-linked operation as reason enough to patch old software within the week.