compliance controls are associated with this Policy definition 'Endpoint protection solution should be installed on virtual machine scale sets' (26a828e1-e88f-464e-bbb3-c134a282b9de)
| Control Domain |
Control |
Name |
MetadataId |
Category |
Title |
Owner |
Requirements |
Description |
Info |
Policy# |
| AU_ISM |
1288 |
AU_ISM_1288 |
AU ISM 1288 |
Guidelines for Gateways - Content filtering |
Antivirus scanning - 1288 |
|
n/a |
Antivirus scanning, using multiple different scanning engines, is performed on all content. |
link |
3 |
| AU_ISM |
1417 |
AU_ISM_1417 |
AU ISM 1417 |
Guidelines for System Hardening - Operating system hardening |
Antivirus software - 1417 |
|
n/a |
Antivirus software is implemented on workstations and servers and configured with:
• signature-based detection enabled and set to a high level
• heuristic-based detection enabled and set to a high level
• detection signatures checked for currency and updated on at least a daily basis
• automatic and regular scanning configured for all fixed disks and removable media. |
link |
3 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v1.0 |
2.8 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v1.0_2.8 |
Azure Security Benchmark 2.8 |
Logging and Monitoring |
Centralize anti-malware logging |
Customer |
Enable antimalware event collection for Azure Virtual Machines and Cloud Services.
How to configure Microsoft Antimalware for Virtual Machines:
https://docs.microsoft.com/powershell/module/servicemanagement/azure/set-azurevmmicrosoftantimalwareextension?view=azuresmps-4.0.0
How to configure Microsoft Antimalware for Cloud Services:
https://docs.microsoft.com/powershell/module/servicemanagement/azure/set-azureserviceantimalwareextension?view=azuresmps-4.0.0
Understand Microsoft Antimalware:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security/fundamentals/antimalware |
n/a |
link |
3 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v1.0 |
8.1 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v1.0_8.1 |
Azure Security Benchmark 8.1 |
Malware Defense |
Use centrally managed anti-malware software |
Customer |
Use Microsoft Antimalware for Azure Cloud Services and Virtual Machines to continuously monitor and defend your resources. For Linux, use third party antimalware solution.
How to configure Microsoft Antimalware for Cloud Services and Virtual Machines:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security/fundamentals/antimalware |
n/a |
link |
2 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0 |
ES-2 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0_ES-2 |
Azure Security Benchmark ES-2 |
Endpoint Security |
Use centrally managed modern anti-malware software |
Customer |
Use a centrally managed endpoint anti-malware solution capable of real time and periodic scanning
Azure Security Center can automatically identify the use of a number of popular anti-malware solutions for your virtual machines and report the endpoint protection running status and make recommendations.
Microsoft Antimalware for Azure Cloud Services is the default anti-malware for Windows virtual machines (VMs). For Linux VMs, use third-party antimalware solution. Also, you can use Azure Security Center's Threat detection for data services to detect malware uploaded to Azure Storage accounts.
How to configure Microsoft Antimalware for Cloud Services and Virtual Machines:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security/fundamentals/antimalware
Supported endpoint protection solutions:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/security-center-services?tabs=features-windows#supported-endpoint-protection-solutions- |
n/a |
link |
3 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0 |
ES-3 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0_ES-3 |
Azure Security Benchmark ES-3 |
Endpoint Security |
Ensure anti-malware software and signatures are updated |
Customer |
Ensure anti-malware signatures are updated rapidly and consistently.
Follow recommendations in Azure Security Center: "Compute & Apps" to ensure all endpoints are up to date with the latest signatures. Microsoft Antimalware will automatically install the latest signatures and engine updates by default. For Linux, use third-party antimalware solution.
How to deploy Microsoft Antimalware for Azure Cloud Services and Virtual Machines: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security/fundamentals/antimalware
Endpoint
protection assessment and recommendations in Azure Security Center:https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/security-center-endpoint-protection |
n/a |
link |
2 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0 |
ES-2 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0_ES-2 |
Microsoft cloud security benchmark ES-2 |
Endpoint Security |
Use modern anti-malware software |
Shared |
**Security Principle:**
Use anti-malware solutions capable of real-time protection and periodic scanning.
**Azure Guidance:**
Microsoft Defender for Cloud can automatically identify the use of a number of popular anti-malware solutions for your virtual machines and on-premises machines with Azure Arc configured, and report the endpoint protection running status and make recommendations.
Microsoft Defender Antivirus is the default anti-malware solution for Windows server 2016 and above. For Windows server 2012 R2, use Microsoft Antimalware extension to enable SCEP (System Center Endpoint Protection), and Microsoft Defender for Cloud to discover and assess the health status. For Linux VMs, use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint on Linux.
Note: You can also use Microsoft Defender for Cloud's Defender for Storage to detect malware uploaded to Azure Storage accounts.
**Implementation and additional context:**
Supported endpoint protection solutions:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/security-center-services?tabs=features-windows#supported-endpoint-protection-solutions-
How to configure Microsoft Antimalware for Cloud Services and virtual machines:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security/fundamentals/antimalware
|
n/a |
link |
5 |
|
C.04.3 - Timelines |
C.04.3 - Timelines |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
29 |
|
C.04.6 - Timelines |
C.04.6 - Timelines |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
29 |
|
C.04.7 - Evaluated |
C.04.7 - Evaluated |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
48 |
| CCCS |
SI-3 |
CCCS_SI-3 |
CCCS SI-3 |
System and Information Integrity |
Malicious Code Protection |
|
n/a |
(A) The organization employs malicious code protection mechanisms at information system entry and exit points to detect and eradicate malicious code.
(B) The organization updates malicious code protection mechanisms whenever new releases are available in accordance with organizational configuration management policy and procedures.
(C) The organization configures malicious code protection mechanisms to:
(a) Perform periodic scans of the information system at least weekly and real-time scans of files from external sources at endpoints and network entry/exit points as the files are downloaded, opened, or executed in accordance with organizational security policy; and
(b) Block and quarantine malicious code; send alert to the key role as defined in the system and information integrity policy in response to malicious code detection.
(D) The organization addresses the receipt of false positives during malicious code detection and eradication and the resulting potential impact on the availability of the information system. |
link |
2 |
| CCCS |
SI-3(1) |
CCCS_SI-3(1) |
CCCS SI-3(1) |
System and Information Integrity |
Malicious Code Protection | Central Management |
|
n/a |
The organization centrally manages malicious code protection mechanisms. |
link |
2 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
SI.L1-3.14.1 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_SI.L1-3.14.1 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
21 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
SI.L1-3.14.2 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_SI.L1-3.14.2 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
14 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
SI.L1-3.14.4 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_SI.L1-3.14.4 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
5 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
SI.L1-3.14.5 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_SI.L1-3.14.5 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
6 |
| CMMC_L3 |
CA.2.158 |
CMMC_L3_CA.2.158 |
CMMC L3 CA.2.158 |
Security Assessment |
Periodically assess the security controls in organizational systems to determine if the controls are effective in their application. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Organizations assess security controls in organizational systems and the environments in which those systems operate as part of the system development life cycle. Security controls are the safeguards or countermeasures organizations implement to satisfy security requirements. By assessing the implemented security controls, organizations determine if the security safeguards or countermeasures are in place and operating as intended. Security control assessments ensure that information security is built into organizational systems; identify weaknesses and deficiencies early in the development process; provide essential information needed to make risk-based decisions; and ensure compliance to vulnerability mitigation procedures. Assessments are conducted on the implemented security controls as documented in system security plans.
Security assessment reports document assessment results in sufficient detail as deemed necessary by organizations, to determine the accuracy and completeness of the reports and whether the security controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended, and producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting security requirements. Security assessment results are provided to the individuals or roles appropriate for the types of assessments being conducted.
Organizations ensure that security assessment results are current, relevant to the determination of security control effectiveness, and obtained with the appropriate level of assessor independence. Organizations can choose to use other types of assessment activities such as vulnerability scanning and system monitoring to maintain the security posture of systems during the system life cycle. |
link |
10 |
| CMMC_L3 |
CA.3.161 |
CMMC_L3_CA.3.161 |
CMMC L3 CA.3.161 |
Security Assessment |
Monitor security controls on an ongoing basis to ensure the continued effectiveness of the controls. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Continuous monitoring programs facilitate ongoing awareness of threats, vulnerabilities, and information security to support organizational risk management decisions. The terms continuous and ongoing imply that organizations assess and analyze security controls and information security-related risks at a frequency sufficient to support risk-based decisions. The results of continuous monitoring programs generate appropriate risk response actions by organizations. Providing access to security information on a continuing basis through reports or dashboards gives organizational officials the capability to make effective and timely risk management decisions.
Automation supports more frequent updates to hardware, software, firmware inventories, and other system information. Effectiveness is further enhanced when continuous monitoring outputs are formatted to provide information that is specific, measurable, actionable, relevant, and timely. Monitoring requirements, including the need for specific monitoring, may also be referenced in other requirements. |
link |
10 |
| CMMC_L3 |
SI.1.211 |
CMMC_L3_SI.1.211 |
CMMC L3 SI.1.211 |
System and Information Integrity |
Provide protection from malicious code at appropriate locations within organizational information systems. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Designated locations include system entry and exit points which may include firewalls, remoteaccess servers, workstations, electronic mail servers, web servers, proxy servers, notebook computers, and mobile devices. Malicious code includes viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and spyware. Malicious code can be encoded in various formats (e.g., UUENCODE, Unicode), contained within compressed or hidden files, or hidden in files using techniques such as steganography. Malicious code can be inserted into systems in a variety of ways including web accesses, electronic mail, electronic mail attachments, and portable storage devices. Malicious code insertions occur through the exploitation of system vulnerabilities.
Malicious code protection mechanisms include anti-virus signature definitions and reputationbased technologies. A variety of technologies and methods exist to limit or eliminate the effects of malicious code. Pervasive configuration management and comprehensive software integrity controls may be effective in preventing execution of unauthorized code. In addition to commercial off-the-shelf software, malicious code may also be present in custom-built software. This could include logic bombs, back doors, and other types of cyber-attacks that could affect organizational missions/business functions. Traditional malicious code protection mechanisms cannot always detect such code. In these situations, organizations rely instead on other safeguards including secure coding practices, configuration management and control, trusted procurement processes, and monitoring practices to help ensure that software does not perform functions other than the functions intended. |
link |
4 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
SC-3 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_SC-3 |
FedRAMP High SC-3 |
System And Communications Protection |
Security Function Isolation |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system isolates security functions from nonsecurity functions.
Supplemental Guidance: The information system isolates security functions from nonsecurity functions by means of an isolation boundary (implemented via partitions and domains). Such isolation controls access to and protects the integrity of the hardware, software, and firmware that perform those security functions. Information systems implement code separation (i.e., separation of security functions from nonsecurity functions) in a number of ways, including, for example, through the provision of security kernels via processor rings or processor modes. For non-kernel code, security function isolation is often achieved through file system protections that serve to protect the code on disk, and address space protections that protect executing code. Information systems restrict access to security functions through the use of access control mechanisms and by implementing least privilege capabilities. While the ideal is for all of the code within the security function isolation boundary to only contain security-relevant code, it is sometimes necessary to include nonsecurity functions within the isolation boundary as an exception. Related controls: AC-
3, AC-6, SA-4, SA-5, SA-8, SA-13, SC-2, SC-7, SC-39.
References: None. |
link |
4 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
SI-3 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_SI-3 |
FedRAMP High SI-3 |
System And Information Integrity |
Malicious Code Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Employs malicious code protection mechanisms at information system entry and exit points to detect and eradicate malicious code;
b. Updates malicious code protection mechanisms whenever new releases are available in accordance with organizational configuration management policy and procedures;
c. Configures malicious code protection mechanisms to:
1. Perform periodic scans of the information system [Assignment: organization-defined frequency] and real-time scans of files from external sources at [Selection (one or more); endpoint; network entry/exit points] as the files are downloaded, opened, or executed in accordance with organizational security policy; and
2. [Selection (one or more): block malicious code; quarantine malicious code; send alert to administrator; [Assignment: organization-defined action]] in response to malicious code detection; and
d. Addresses the receipt of false positives during malicious code detection and eradication and the resulting potential impact on the availability of the information system.
Supplemental Guidance: Information system entry and exit points include, for example, firewalls, electronic mail servers, web servers, proxy servers, remote-access servers, workstations, notebook computers, and mobile devices. Malicious code includes, for example, viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and spyware. Malicious code can also be encoded in various formats (e.g., UUENCODE, Unicode), contained within compressed or hidden files, or hidden in files using steganography. Malicious code can be transported by different means including, for example, web accesses, electronic mail, electronic mail attachments, and portable storage devices. Malicious code insertions occur through the exploitation of information system vulnerabilities. Malicious code protection mechanisms include, for example, anti-virus signature definitions and reputation-based technologies. A variety of technologies and methods exist to limit or eliminate the effects of malicious code. Pervasive configuration management and comprehensive software integrity controls may be effective in preventing execution of unauthorized code. In addition to commercial off-the-shelf software, malicious code may also be present in custom-built software. This could include, for example, logic bombs, back doors, and other types of cyber attacks that could affect organizational missions/business functions. Traditional malicious code protection mechanisms cannot always detect such code. In these situations, organizations rely instead on other safeguards including, for example, secure coding practices, configuration management and control, trusted procurement processes, and monitoring practices to help ensure that software does not perform functions other than the functions intended. Organizations may determine that in response to the detection of malicious code, different actions may be warranted. For example, organizations can define actions in response to malicious code detection during periodic scans, actions in response to detection of malicious downloads, and/or actions in response to detection of maliciousness when attempting to open or execute files. Related controls: CM-3, MP-2, SA-4, SA-8, SA-12, SA-13,
SC-7, SC-26, SC-44, SI-2, SI-4, SI-7.
References: NIST Special Publication 800-83. |
link |
11 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
SI-3(1) |
FedRAMP_High_R4_SI-3(1) |
FedRAMP High SI-3 (1) |
System And Information Integrity |
Central Management |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization centrally manages malicious code protection mechanisms.
Supplemental Guidance: Central management is the organization-wide management and implementation of malicious code protection mechanisms. Central management includes planning, implementing, assessing, authorizing, and monitoring the organization-defined, centrally managed flaw malicious code protection security controls. Related controls: AU-2, SI-8. |
link |
10 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
SI-3 |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_SI-3 |
FedRAMP Moderate SI-3 |
System And Information Integrity |
Malicious Code Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Employs malicious code protection mechanisms at information system entry and exit points to detect and eradicate malicious code;
b. Updates malicious code protection mechanisms whenever new releases are available in accordance with organizational configuration management policy and procedures;
c. Configures malicious code protection mechanisms to:
1. Perform periodic scans of the information system [Assignment: organization-defined frequency] and real-time scans of files from external sources at [Selection (one or more); endpoint; network entry/exit points] as the files are downloaded, opened, or executed in accordance with organizational security policy; and
2. [Selection (one or more): block malicious code; quarantine malicious code; send alert to administrator; [Assignment: organization-defined action]] in response to malicious code detection; and
d. Addresses the receipt of false positives during malicious code detection and eradication and the resulting potential impact on the availability of the information system.
Supplemental Guidance: Information system entry and exit points include, for example, firewalls, electronic mail servers, web servers, proxy servers, remote-access servers, workstations, notebook computers, and mobile devices. Malicious code includes, for example, viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and spyware. Malicious code can also be encoded in various formats (e.g., UUENCODE, Unicode), contained within compressed or hidden files, or hidden in files using steganography. Malicious code can be transported by different means including, for example, web accesses, electronic mail, electronic mail attachments, and portable storage devices. Malicious code insertions occur through the exploitation of information system vulnerabilities. Malicious code protection mechanisms include, for example, anti-virus signature definitions and reputation-based technologies. A variety of technologies and methods exist to limit or eliminate the effects of malicious code. Pervasive configuration management and comprehensive software integrity controls may be effective in preventing execution of unauthorized code. In addition to commercial off-the-shelf software, malicious code may also be present in custom-built software. This could include, for example, logic bombs, back doors, and other types of cyber attacks that could affect organizational missions/business functions. Traditional malicious code protection mechanisms cannot always detect such code. In these situations, organizations rely instead on other safeguards including, for example, secure coding practices, configuration management and control, trusted procurement processes, and monitoring practices to help ensure that software does not perform functions other than the functions intended. Organizations may determine that in response to the detection of malicious code, different actions may be warranted. For example, organizations can define actions in response to malicious code detection during periodic scans, actions in response to detection of malicious downloads, and/or actions in response to detection of maliciousness when attempting to open or execute files. Related controls: CM-3, MP-2, SA-4, SA-8, SA-12, SA-13,
SC-7, SC-26, SC-44, SI-2, SI-4, SI-7.
References: NIST Special Publication 800-83. |
link |
11 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
SI-3(1) |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_SI-3(1) |
FedRAMP Moderate SI-3 (1) |
System And Information Integrity |
Central Management |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization centrally manages malicious code protection mechanisms.
Supplemental Guidance: Central management is the organization-wide management and implementation of malicious code protection mechanisms. Central management includes planning, implementing, assessing, authorizing, and monitoring the organization-defined, centrally managed flaw malicious code protection security controls. Related controls: AU-2, SI-8. |
link |
10 |
| hipaa |
0201.09j1Organizational.124-09.j |
hipaa-0201.09j1Organizational.124-09.j |
0201.09j1Organizational.124-09.j |
02 Endpoint Protection |
0201.09j1Organizational.124-09.j 09.04 Protection Against Malicious and Mobile Code |
Shared |
n/a |
Anti-virus and anti-spyware are installed, operating and updated on all end-user devices to conduct periodic scans of the systems to identify and remove unauthorized software. Server environments for which the server software developer specifically recommends not installing host-based anti-virus and anti-spyware software are addressed via a network-based malware detection (NBMD) solution. |
|
18 |
| IRS_1075_9.3 |
.17.3 |
IRS_1075_9.3.17.3 |
IRS 1075 9.3.17.3 |
System and Information Integrity |
Malicious Code Protection (SI-3) |
|
n/a |
Malicious code protection includes antivirus software and antimalware and intrusion detection systems.
The agency must:
a. Employ malicious code protection mechanisms at information system entry and exit points to detect and eradicate malicious code
b. Update malicious code protection mechanisms whenever new releases are available in accordance with agency configuration management policy and procedures
c. Configure malicious code protection mechanisms to:
1. Perform periodic scans of the information system weekly and real-time scans of files from external sources at endpoint and network entry/exit points as the files are downloaded, opened, or executed in accordance with agency security policy
2. Either block or quarantine malicious code and send an alert to the administrator in response to malicious code detection
d. Address the receipt of false positives during malicious code detection and eradication and the resulting potential impact on the availability of the information system
e. Centrally manage malicious code protection mechanisms (CE1)
The information system must automatically update malicious code protection mechanisms. (CE2)
Information system entry and exit points include, for example, firewalls, electronic mail servers, Web servers, proxy servers, remote access servers, workstations, notebook computers, and mobile devices. Malicious code includes, for example, viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and spyware. Malicious code can also be encoded in various formats (e.g., UUENCODE, Unicode), contained within compressed or hidden files or hidden in files using steganography. Malicious code can be transported by different means, including, for example, Web accesses, electronic mail, electronic mail attachments, and portable storage devices. |
link |
2 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.14.1 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.14.1 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.14.1 |
System and Information Integrity |
Identify, report, and correct system flaws in a timely manner. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Organizations identify systems that are affected by announced software and firmware flaws including potential vulnerabilities resulting from those flaws and report this information to designated personnel with information security responsibilities. Security-relevant updates include patches, service packs, hot fixes, and anti-virus signatures. Organizations address flaws discovered during security assessments, continuous monitoring, incident response activities, and system error handling. Organizations can take advantage of available resources such as the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) database or Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database in remediating flaws discovered in organizational systems. Organization-defined time periods for updating security-relevant software and firmware may vary based on a variety of factors including the criticality of the update (i.e., severity of the vulnerability related to the discovered flaw). Some types of flaw remediation may require more testing than other types of remediation. [SP 800-40] provides guidance on patch management technologies. |
link |
24 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.14.2 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.14.2 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.14.2 |
System and Information Integrity |
Provide protection from malicious code at designated locations within organizational systems. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Designated locations include system entry and exit points which may include firewalls, remote-access servers, workstations, electronic mail servers, web servers, proxy servers, notebook computers, and mobile devices. Malicious code includes viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and spyware. Malicious code can be encoded in various formats (e.g., UUENCODE, Unicode), contained within compressed or hidden files, or hidden in files using techniques such as steganography. Malicious code can be inserted into systems in a variety of ways including web accesses, electronic mail, electronic mail attachments, and portable storage devices. Malicious code insertions occur through the exploitation of system vulnerabilities. Malicious code protection mechanisms include anti-virus signature definitions and reputation-based technologies. A variety of technologies and methods exist to limit or eliminate the effects of malicious code. Pervasive configuration management and comprehensive software integrity controls may be effective in preventing execution of unauthorized code. In addition to commercial off-the-shelf software, malicious code may also be present in custom-built software. This could include logic bombs, back doors, and other types of cyber-attacks that could affect organizational missions/business functions. Traditional malicious code protection mechanisms cannot always detect such code. In these situations, organizations rely instead on other safeguards including secure coding practices, configuration management and control, trusted procurement processes, and monitoring practices to help ensure that software does not perform functions other than the functions intended. [SP 800-83] provides guidance on malware incident prevention. |
link |
21 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.14.4 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.14.4 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.14.4 |
System and Information Integrity |
Update malicious code protection mechanisms when new releases are available. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Malicious code protection mechanisms include anti-virus signature definitions and reputation-based technologies. A variety of technologies and methods exist to limit or eliminate the effects of malicious code. Pervasive configuration management and comprehensive software integrity controls may be effective in preventing execution of unauthorized code. In addition to commercial off-the-shelf software, malicious code may also be present in custom-built software. This could include logic bombs, back doors, and other types of cyber-attacks that could affect organizational missions/business functions. Traditional malicious code protection mechanisms cannot always detect such code. In these situations, organizations rely instead on other safeguards including secure coding practices, configuration management and control, trusted procurement processes, and monitoring practices to help ensure that software does not perform functions other than the functions intended. |
link |
11 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.14.5 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.14.5 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.14.5 |
System and Information Integrity |
Perform periodic scans of organizational systems and real-time scans of files from external sources as files are downloaded, opened, or executed. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Periodic scans of organizational systems and real-time scans of files from external sources can detect malicious code. Malicious code can be encoded in various formats (e.g., UUENCODE, Unicode), contained within compressed or hidden files, or hidden in files using techniques such as steganography. Malicious code can be inserted into systems in a variety of ways including web accesses, electronic mail, electronic mail attachments, and portable storage devices. Malicious code insertions occur through the exploitation of system vulnerabilities. |
link |
6 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
SC-3 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_SC-3 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 SC-3 |
System And Communications Protection |
Security Function Isolation |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system isolates security functions from nonsecurity functions.
Supplemental Guidance: The information system isolates security functions from nonsecurity functions by means of an isolation boundary (implemented via partitions and domains). Such isolation controls access to and protects the integrity of the hardware, software, and firmware that perform those security functions. Information systems implement code separation (i.e., separation of security functions from nonsecurity functions) in a number of ways, including, for example, through the provision of security kernels via processor rings or processor modes. For non-kernel code, security function isolation is often achieved through file system protections that serve to protect the code on disk, and address space protections that protect executing code. Information systems restrict access to security functions through the use of access control mechanisms and by implementing least privilege capabilities. While the ideal is for all of the code within the security function isolation boundary to only contain security-relevant code, it is sometimes necessary to include nonsecurity functions within the isolation boundary as an exception. Related controls: AC-
3, AC-6, SA-4, SA-5, SA-8, SA-13, SC-2, SC-7, SC-39.
References: None. |
link |
4 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
SI-3 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_SI-3 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 SI-3 |
System And Information Integrity |
Malicious Code Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Employs malicious code protection mechanisms at information system entry and exit points to detect and eradicate malicious code;
b. Updates malicious code protection mechanisms whenever new releases are available in accordance with organizational configuration management policy and procedures;
c. Configures malicious code protection mechanisms to:
1. Perform periodic scans of the information system [Assignment: organization-defined frequency] and real-time scans of files from external sources at [Selection (one or more); endpoint; network entry/exit points] as the files are downloaded, opened, or executed in accordance with organizational security policy; and
2. [Selection (one or more): block malicious code; quarantine malicious code; send alert to administrator; [Assignment: organization-defined action]] in response to malicious code detection; and
d. Addresses the receipt of false positives during malicious code detection and eradication and the resulting potential impact on the availability of the information system.
Supplemental Guidance: Information system entry and exit points include, for example, firewalls, electronic mail servers, web servers, proxy servers, remote-access servers, workstations, notebook computers, and mobile devices. Malicious code includes, for example, viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and spyware. Malicious code can also be encoded in various formats (e.g., UUENCODE, Unicode), contained within compressed or hidden files, or hidden in files using steganography. Malicious code can be transported by different means including, for example, web accesses, electronic mail, electronic mail attachments, and portable storage devices. Malicious code insertions occur through the exploitation of information system vulnerabilities. Malicious code protection mechanisms include, for example, anti-virus signature definitions and reputation-based technologies. A variety of technologies and methods exist to limit or eliminate the effects of malicious code. Pervasive configuration management and comprehensive software integrity controls may be effective in preventing execution of unauthorized code. In addition to commercial off-the-shelf software, malicious code may also be present in custom-built software. This could include, for example, logic bombs, back doors, and other types of cyber attacks that could affect organizational missions/business functions. Traditional malicious code protection mechanisms cannot always detect such code. In these situations, organizations rely instead on other safeguards including, for example, secure coding practices, configuration management and control, trusted procurement processes, and monitoring practices to help ensure that software does not perform functions other than the functions intended. Organizations may determine that in response to the detection of malicious code, different actions may be warranted. For example, organizations can define actions in response to malicious code detection during periodic scans, actions in response to detection of malicious downloads, and/or actions in response to detection of maliciousness when attempting to open or execute files. Related controls: CM-3, MP-2, SA-4, SA-8, SA-12, SA-13,
SC-7, SC-26, SC-44, SI-2, SI-4, SI-7.
References: NIST Special Publication 800-83. |
link |
11 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
SI-3(1) |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_SI-3(1) |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 SI-3 (1) |
System And Information Integrity |
Central Management |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization centrally manages malicious code protection mechanisms.
Supplemental Guidance: Central management is the organization-wide management and implementation of malicious code protection mechanisms. Central management includes planning, implementing, assessing, authorizing, and monitoring the organization-defined, centrally managed flaw malicious code protection security controls. Related controls: AU-2, SI-8. |
link |
10 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
SC-3 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_SC-3 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-3 |
System and Communications Protection |
Security Function Isolation |
Shared |
n/a |
Isolate security functions from nonsecurity functions. |
link |
4 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
SI-3 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_SI-3 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-3 |
System and Information Integrity |
Malicious Code Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
a. Implement [Selection (OneOrMore): signature based;non-signature based] malicious code protection mechanisms at system entry and exit points to detect and eradicate malicious code;
b. Automatically update malicious code protection mechanisms as new releases are available in accordance with organizational configuration management policy and procedures;
c. Configure malicious code protection mechanisms to:
1. Perform periodic scans of the system [Assignment: organization-defined frequency] and real-time scans of files from external sources at [Selection (OneOrMore): endpoint;network entry and exit points] as the files are downloaded, opened, or executed in accordance with organizational policy; and
2. [Selection (OneOrMore): block malicious code;quarantine malicious code;take [Assignment: organization-defined action] ] ; and send alert to [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles] in response to malicious code detection; and
d. Address the receipt of false positives during malicious code detection and eradication and the resulting potential impact on the availability of the system. |
link |
11 |
| NZ_ISM_v3.5 |
SS-3 |
NZ_ISM_v3.5_SS-3 |
NZISM Security Benchmark SS-3 |
Software security |
14.1.9 Maintaining hardened SOEs |
Customer |
n/a |
Whilst a SOE can be sufficiently hardened when it is deployed, its security will progressively degrade over time. Agencies can address the degradation of the security of a SOE by ensuring that patches are continually applied, system users are not able to disable or bypass security functionality and antivirus and other security software is appropriately maintained with the latest signatures and updates.
End Point Agents monitor traffic and apply security policies on applications, storage interfaces and data in real-time. Administrators actively block or monitor and log policy breaches. The End Point Agent can also create forensic monitoring to facilitate incident investigation.
End Point Agents can monitor user activity, such as the cut, copy, paste, print, print screen operations and copying data to external drives and other devices. The Agent can then apply policies to limit such activity. |
link |
17 |
| NZISM_Security_Benchmark_v1.1 |
SS-3 |
NZISM_Security_Benchmark_v1.1_SS-3 |
NZISM Security Benchmark SS-3 |
Software security |
14.1.9 Maintaining hardened SOEs |
Customer |
Agencies SHOULD ensure that for all servers and workstations:
malware detection heuristics are set to a high level;
malware pattern signatures are checked for updates on at least a daily basis;
malware pattern signatures are updated as soon as possible after vendors make them available;
all disks and systems are regularly scanned for malicious code; and
the use of End Point Agents is considered. |
Whilst a SOE can be sufficiently hardened when it is deployed, its security will progressively degrade over time. Agencies can address the degradation of the security of a SOE by ensuring that patches are continually applied, system users are not able to disable or bypass security functionality and antivirus and other security software is appropriately maintained with the latest signatures and updates.
End Point Agents monitor traffic and apply security policies on applications, storage interfaces and data in real-time. Administrators actively block or monitor and log policy breaches. The End Point Agent can also create forensic monitoring to facilitate incident investigation.
End Point Agents can monitor user activity, such as the cut, copy, paste, print, print screen operations and copying data to external drives and other devices. The Agent can then apply policies to limit such activity. |
link |
13 |
| RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016 |
13.1 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_13.1 |
|
Advanced Real-Timethreat Defenceand Management |
Advanced Real-Timethreat Defenceand Management-13.1 |
|
n/a |
Build a robust defence against the installation, spread, and execution of malicious code at multiple points in the enterprise. |
|
27 |
| RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016 |
13.2 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_13.2 |
|
Advanced Real-Timethreat Defenceand Management |
Advanced Real-Timethreat Defenceand Management-13.2 |
|
n/a |
Implement Anti-malware, Antivirus protection including behavioural detection systems for all categories of devices ???(Endpoints such as PCs/laptops/ mobile devices etc.), servers (operating systems, databases, applications, etc.), Web/Internet gateways, email-gateways, Wireless networks, SMS servers etc. including tools and processes for centralised management and monitoring. |
|
22 |
| RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016 |
15.1 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_15.1 |
|
Data Leak Prevention Strategy |
Data Leak Prevention Strategy-15.1 |
|
n/a |
Develop a comprehensive data loss/leakage prevention strategy to safeguard sensitive (including confidential)business and customer data/information. |
|
8 |
| RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016 |
15.3 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_15.3 |
|
Data Leak Prevention Strategy |
Data Leak Prevention Strategy-15.3 |
|
n/a |
Similar arrangements need to be ensured at the vendor managed facilities as well. |
|
5 |
| RMiT_v1.0 |
11.17 |
RMiT_v1.0_11.17 |
RMiT 11.17 |
Security Operations Centre (SOC) |
Security Operations Centre (SOC) - 11.17 |
Shared |
n/a |
A financial institution must ensure its SOC, whether managed in-house or by third party service providers, has adequate capabilities for proactive monitoring of its technology security posture. This shall enable the financial institution to detect anomalous user or network activities, flag potential breaches and establish the appropriate response supported by skilled resources based on the level of complexity of the alerts. The outcome of the SOC activities shall also inform the financial institution's reviews of its cybersecurity posture and strategy. |
link |
4 |
| SOC_2 |
CC6.8 |
SOC_2_CC6.8 |
SOC 2 Type 2 CC6.8 |
Logical and Physical Access Controls |
Prevent or detect against unauthorized or malicious software |
Shared |
The customer is responsible for implementing this recommendation. |
Restricts Application and Software Installation — The ability to install applications
and software is restricted to authorized individuals.
• Detects Unauthorized Changes to Software and Configuration Parameters — Processes are in place to detect changes to software and configuration parameters that
may be indicative of unauthorized or malicious software.
• Uses a Defined Change Control Process — A management-defined change control
process is used for the implementation of software.
• Uses Antivirus and Anti-Malware Software — Antivirus and anti-malware software
is implemented and maintained to provide for the interception or detection and remediation of malware.
• Scans Information Assets from Outside the Entity for Malware and Other Unauthorized Software — Procedures are in place to scan information assets that have been
transferred or returned to the entity’s custody for malware and other unauthorized
software and to remove any items detected prior to its implementation on the network. |
|
53 |
| SWIFT_CSCF_v2021 |
6.1 |
SWIFT_CSCF_v2021_6.1 |
SWIFT CSCF v2021 6.1 |
Detect Anomalous Activity to Systems or Transaction Records |
Malware Protection |
|
n/a |
Ensure that local SWIFT infrastructure is protected against malware. |
link |
4 |
| SWIFT_CSCF_v2022 |
6.1 |
SWIFT_CSCF_v2022_6.1 |
SWIFT CSCF v2022 6.1 |
6. Detect Anomalous Activity to Systems or Transaction Records |
Ensure that local SWIFT infrastructure is protected against malware and act upon results. |
Shared |
n/a |
Anti-malware software from a reputable vendor is installed, kept up-to-date on all systems, and results are considered for appropriate resolving actions. |
link |
31 |
|
U.09.3 - Detection, prevention and recovery |
U.09.3 - Detection, prevention and recovery |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
32 |
| UK_NCSC_CSP |
11 |
UK_NCSC_CSP_11 |
UK NCSC CSP 11 |
External interface protection |
External interface protection |
Shared |
n/a |
All external or less trusted interfaces of the service should be identified and appropriately defended. |
link |
8 |