What data for this category looks like
Core data for vulnerability scanning services comes from vulnerability scanners, asset inventories, CVE databases and patch bulletins, with an update frequency of weekly or monthly. Daily produced documents include scan plans, vulnerability lists, remediation tickets and rescan reports. Each document’s fields correspond to asset IP addresses, vulnerability CVE IDs, risk levels, remediation statuses, rescan results and other items. There are no uniform mandatory units. Some fields must match the IP range format of asset inventories and standard CVE number format. Typical users include security operations teams, security service providers and system administrators. Daily work around this data includes confirming asset scope, eliminating false positives and similar tasks.
What constraints these characteristics impose on forms and interactions
Dispersed data sources mean forms must support multi-source data import or format validation, to prevent entries that do not match asset inventories or CVE databases. Weekly or monthly update frequency requires forms to pre-set task cycle options, to adapt to scan plan configurations with different frequencies. Standardization requirements for multiple document fields mean input formats must be restricted, to reduce invalid data submissions. Time-consuming steps such as confirming asset scope and eliminating false positives require pre-set common options or grouping in forms, to lower manual input costs. Severe consequences such as high-risk vulnerability exposure and audit score deductions require forms to add multi-layer validation, to block configurations that may trigger serious risks.
How to set configurations
| Configuration Item | Recommended Practice | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
Form input node formInput | Test practice: Select 3 fields from vulnerability scanning service fields as required inputs; actual fields are determined by the task | This node collects user input; when required fields are missing, interaction status must be checked to prevent subsequent nodes from failing to receive complete input |
User selection node userSelect | Test practice: Set 2 business options, check corresponding branches one by one | This node handles user selection; queries and filtering of vulnerability scanning service related records must be implemented by subsequent interfaces or external systems |
| Field passing after submission | Test practice: Prepare 10 vulnerability scanning service input samples, covering full completion, missing required fields and canceled operations | Compare input and node output to verify whether subsequent nodes receive corresponding fields; result thresholds are determined by actual tasks |
| External implementation item: Asset range input box | Must be implemented separately by external systems; enable formInput | Matches the standard format of asset inventories; format validation is handled by external business systems or subsequent nodes |
| External implementation item: Task cycle selector | Must be implemented separately by external systems; pre-set weekly and monthly options | Adapts to the weekly or monthly data update frequency, matches the test cycle examples of scan plans |
| External implementation item: Judgment rule configuration area | Must be implemented separately by external systems; support userSelect | Adapts to workflow judgment requirements; matching rules are implemented by external systems or subsequent workflow branches |
Three common mistakes
- Phenomenon: When configuring required fields for a form, the value range must comply with external business system requirements. Cause: The required field value range is not configured according to the rules defined by the external system.
- Phenomenon: Workflow judgment rules do not execute as expected. Cause: The judgment rules are not correctly bound to the target output fields, or the matching logic is not configured according to external system requirements.
- Phenomenon: Key user input information is not obtained after form submission. Cause: The user input collection configuration for
formInputoruserSelectis not enabled, causing the form to fail to capture submitted user content.
How to confirm the configuration is complete
- Submit a test scan plan form, confirm that the form can normally collect asset range input information, with format validation handled by external business systems or subsequent nodes.
- Trigger workflow judgment rules, verify that the matching logic executes according to the configuration of external systems or subsequent workflow branches.
- After enabling the user input module, submit a test form, confirm that the system can correctly capture and display the key user input information.
- View configuration logs, confirm that the configuration of form required fields complies with the rules defined by external business systems, with no abnormal errors.
All provided configuration values are common starting points, and should be evaluated against your own specific samples.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-10-19.