The S2C2F framework says every organization should aspire to patch vulnerable open source packages in under 72 hours, so you patch faster than attackers can operate. It is an aspiration, not a rule. To get close you need an inventory, automated update pull requests and an owner for each service.
Where the 72 hours comes from
The S2C2F specification, in its Update It practice, points to a SaltStack vulnerability in 2020 that was exploited within three days after announcement. From that it concludes that every organization should aspire to patch vulnerable open source packages in under 72 hours. The Level 2 description repeats the idea: use automation to keep open source hygiene healthy so that you can patch faster than attackers can operate.
Note the wording. The framework says "aspire". A single incident is also not a statistic about all vulnerabilities. Treat 72 hours as a direction for your most urgent cases, not a deadline for every finding.
What you need before speed is possible
You cannot patch fast what you cannot find. Three things have to exist first.
- An inventory. The framework's Inventory It practice asks that you know which services and products use each artifact, so the affected teams can be contacted. Without it, the first day of an incident is spent searching.
- Automated update pull requests. The specification names tools that generate pull requests to update vulnerable packages as critical capabilities. It describes a team with three vulnerable packages starting with the most widely deployed one.
- A named owner per service. Someone has to merge and deploy.
A practical tiering
Do not use one clock for everything. A simple approach is to separate urgent from routine.
| Case | Suggested approach |
|---|---|
| Known exploitation or a critical flaw in a package you ship | Treat as an incident and aim for the fastest fix you safely can |
| High severity, no known exploitation | Fix within your normal sprint, with an owner and a date |
| Lower severity | Batch into routine updates |
Tune the thresholds to your own risk tolerance, and use exploitation signals rather than severity score alone. See how to answer a customer who asks about patch speed for how to answer when a customer asks.
What an OSPO should measure
Measure the time from public fix availability to deployment, per service, and report the median and the slowest. The slowest services tell you where the inventory or ownership is weak. A median that looks fine while one service lags for months hides the real risk.
The exception route
The framework's last practice, Fix It plus Upstream, is for extreme cases only. If the upstream maintainer cannot ship a public fix within your risk tolerance, it suggests first confidentially reporting the issue and suggesting a fix, and only then patching privately as temporary mitigation.
Try it yourself
Click through it at your own pace, or open it full screen. See how a fix becomes available as a pull request you can review.
How Safeguard fits
Safeguard offers autonomous remediation with fix PRs, which is off by default with every category on Manual, along with reachability analysis to help you decide what is urgent. Try gold.safeguard.sh/scan.
Quick check
Is 72 hours a standard I must meet?
No. It is an aspiration stated in a framework. Set your own targets by risk.
What if there is no fix upstream yet?
The framework suggests reporting confidentially to the maintainer and offering a fix. Private patching is a temporary last resort.
Sources
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
