| Compliance |
The following 98 compliance controls are associated with this Policy definition 'Azure Defender for SQL servers on machines should be enabled' (6581d072-105e-4418-827f-bd446d56421b)
| Control Domain |
Control |
Name |
MetadataId |
Category |
Title |
Owner |
Requirements |
Description |
Info |
Policy# |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0 |
DP-2 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0_DP-2 |
Azure Security Benchmark DP-2 |
Data Protection |
Protect sensitive data |
Shared |
Protect sensitive data by restricting access using Azure Role Based Access Control (Azure RBAC), network-based access controls, and specific controls in Azure services (such as encryption in SQL and other databases).
To ensure consistent access control, all types of access control should be aligned to your enterprise segmentation strategy. The enterprise segmentation strategy should also be informed by the location of sensitive or business critical data and systems.
For the underlying platform, which is managed by Microsoft, Microsoft treats all customer content as sensitive and guards against customer data loss and exposure. To ensure customer data within Azure remains secure, Microsoft has implemented some default data protection controls and capabilities.
Azure Role Based Access Control (RBAC): https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/role-based-access-control/overview
Understand customer data protection in Azure: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security/fundamentals/protection-customer-data |
n/a |
link |
7 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0 |
DP-3 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0_DP-3 |
Azure Security Benchmark DP-3 |
Data Protection |
Monitor for unauthorized transfer of sensitive data |
Shared |
Monitor for unauthorized transfer of data to locations outside of enterprise visibility and control. This typically involves monitoring for anomalous activities (large or unusual transfers) that could indicate unauthorized data exfiltration.
Azure Storage Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) and Azure SQL ATP can alert on anomalous transfer of information that might indicate unauthorized transfers of sensitive information.
Azure Information protection (AIP) provides monitoring capabilities for information that has been classified and labelled.
If required for compliance of data loss prevention (DLP), you can use a host-based DLP solution to enforce detective and/or preventative controls to prevent data exfiltration.
Enable Azure SQL ATP: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/azure-sql/database/threat-detection-overview
Enable Azure Storage ATP: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/storage/common/storage-advanced-threat-protection?tabs=azure-security-center |
n/a |
link |
4 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0 |
IR-3 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0_IR-3 |
Azure Security Benchmark IR-3 |
Incident Response |
Detection and analysis - create incidents based on high quality alerts |
Customer |
Ensure you have a process to create high quality alerts and measure the quality of alerts. This allows you to learn lessons from past incidents and prioritize alerts for analysts, so they don’t waste time on false positives.
High quality alerts can be built based on experience from past incidents, validated community sources, and tools designed to generate and clean up alerts by fusing and correlating diverse signal sources.
Azure Security Center provides high quality alerts across many Azure assets. You can use the ASC data connector to stream the alerts to Azure Sentinel. Azure Sentinel lets you create advanced alert rules to generate incidents automatically for an investigation.
Export your Azure Security Center alerts and recommendations using the export feature to help identify risks to Azure resources. Export alerts and recommendations either manually or in an ongoing, continuous fashion.
How to configure export: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/continuous-export
How to stream alerts into Azure Sentinel: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/sentinel/connect-azure-security-center |
n/a |
link |
9 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0 |
IR-5 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0_IR-5 |
Azure Security Benchmark IR-5 |
Incident Response |
Detection and analysis - prioritize incidents |
Customer |
Provide context to analysts on which incidents to focus on first based on alert severity and asset sensitivity.
Azure Security Center assigns a severity to each alert to help you prioritize which alerts should be investigated first. The severity is based on how confident Security Center is in the finding or the analytic used to issue the alert, as well as the confidence level that there was malicious intent behind the activity that led to the alert.
Additionally, mark resources using tags and create a naming system to identify and categorize Azure resources, especially those processing sensitive data. It is your responsibility to prioritize the remediation of alerts based on the criticality of the Azure resources and environment where the incident occurred.
Security alerts in Azure Security Center: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/security-center-alerts-overview
Use tags to organize your Azure resources: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/azure-resource-manager/resource-group-using-tags |
n/a |
link |
9 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0 |
LT-1 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0_LT-1 |
Azure Security Benchmark LT-1 |
Logging and Threat Detection |
Enable threat detection for Azure resources |
Customer |
Ensure you are monitoring different types of Azure assets for potential threats and anomalies. Focus on getting high quality alerts to reduce false positives for analysts to sort through. Alerts can be sourced from log data, agents, or other data.
Use the Azure Security Center built-in threat detection capability, which is based on monitoring Azure service telemetry and analyzing service logs. Data is collected using the Log Analytics agent, which reads various security-related configurations and event logs from the system and copies the data to your workspace for analysis.
In addition, use Azure Sentinel to build analytics rules, which hunt threats that match specific criteria across your environment. The rules generate incidents when the criteria are matched, so that you can investigate each incident. Azure Sentinel can also import third party threat intelligence to enhance its threat detection capability.
Threat protection in Azure Security Center: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/threat-protection
Azure Security Center security alerts reference guide: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/alerts-reference
Create custom analytics rules to detect threats: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/sentinel/tutorial-detect-threats-custom
Cyber threat intelligence with Azure Sentinel: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/architecture/example-scenario/data/sentinel-threat-intelligence |
n/a |
link |
9 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0 |
LT-2 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0_LT-2 |
Azure Security Benchmark LT-2 |
Logging and Threat Detection |
Enable threat detection for Azure identity and access management |
Customer |
Azure AD provides the following user logs that can be viewed in Azure AD reporting or integrated with Azure Monitor, Azure Sentinel or other SIEM/monitoring tools for more sophisticated monitoring and analytics use cases:
- Sign-ins - The sign-ins report provides information about the usage of managed applications and user sign-in activities.
- Audit logs - Provides traceability through logs for all changes done by various features within Azure AD. Examples of audit logs include changes made to any resources within Azure AD like adding or removing users, apps, groups, roles and policies.
- Risky sign-ins - A risky sign-in is an indicator for a sign-in attempt that might have been performed by someone who is not the legitimate owner of a user account.
- Users flagged for risk - A risky user is an indicator for a user account that might have been compromised.
Azure Security Center can also alert on certain suspicious activities such as an excessive number of failed authentication attempts, and deprecated accounts in the subscription. In addition to the basic security hygiene monitoring, Azure Security Center’s Threat Protection module can also collect more in-depth security alerts from individual Azure compute resources (such as virtual machines, containers, app service), data resources (such as SQL DB and storage), and Azure service layers. This capability allows you to see account anomalies inside the individual resources.
Audit activity reports in Azure AD: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/reports-monitoring/concept-audit-logs
Enable Azure Identity Protection: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/identity-protection/overview-identity-protection
Threat protection in Azure Security Center: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/threat-protection |
n/a |
link |
9 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0 |
DP-2 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0_DP-2 |
Microsoft cloud security benchmark DP-2 |
Data Protection |
Monitor anomalies and threats targeting sensitive data |
Shared |
**Security Principle:**
Monitor for anomalies around sensitive data, such as unauthorized transfer of data to locations outside of enterprise visibility and control. This typically involves monitoring for anomalous activities (large or unusual transfers) that could indicate unauthorized data exfiltration.
**Azure Guidance:**
Use Azure Information protection (AIP) to monitor the data that has been classified and labeled.
Use Azure Defender for Storage, Azure Defender for SQL and Azure Cosmos DB to alert on anomalous transfer of information that might indicate unauthorized transfers of sensitive data information.
Note: If required for compliance of data loss prevention (DLP), you can use a host based DLP solution from Azure Marketplace or a Microsoft 365 DLP solution to enforce detective and/or preventative controls to prevent data exfiltration.
**Implementation and additional context:**
Enable Azure Defender for SQL:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/azure-sql/database/azure-defender-for-sql
Enable Azure Defender for Storage:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/storage/common/storage-advanced-threat-protection?tabs=azure-security-center |
n/a |
link |
6 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0 |
IR-3 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0_IR-3 |
Microsoft cloud security benchmark IR-3 |
Incident Response |
Detection and analysis - create incidents based on high-quality alerts |
Shared |
**Security Principle:**
Ensure you have a process to create high-quality alerts and measure the quality of alerts. This allows you to learn lessons from past incidents and prioritize alerts for analysts, so they don't waste time on false positives.
High-quality alerts can be built based on experience from past incidents, validated community sources, and tools designed to generate and clean up alerts by fusing and correlating diverse signal sources.
**Azure Guidance:**
Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides high-quality alerts across many Azure assets. You can use the Microsoft Defender for Cloud data connector to stream the alerts to Azure Sentinel. Azure Sentinel lets you create advanced alert rules to generate incidents automatically for an investigation.
Export your Microsoft Defender for Cloud alerts and recommendations using the export feature to help identify risks to Azure resources. Export alerts and recommendations either manually or in an ongoing, continuous fashion.
**Implementation and additional context:**
How to configure export:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/continuous-export
How to stream alerts into Azure Sentinel:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/sentinel/connect-azure-security-center |
n/a |
link |
15 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0 |
IR-5 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0_IR-5 |
AMicrosoft cloud security benchmark IR-5 |
Incident Response |
Detection and analysis - prioritize incidents |
Shared |
**Security Principle:**
Provide context to security operations teams to help them determine which incidents ought to first be focused on, based on alert severity and asset sensitivity defined in your organization’s incident response plan.
**Azure Guidance:**
Microsoft Defender for Cloud assigns a severity to each alert to help you prioritize which alerts should be investigated first. The severity is based on how confident Microsoft Defender for Cloud is in the finding or the analytics used to issue the alert, as well as the confidence level that there was malicious intent behind the activity that led to the alert.
Additionally, mark resources using tags and create a naming system to identify and categorize Azure resources, especially those processing sensitive data. It is your responsibility to prioritize the remediation of alerts based on the criticality of the Azure resources and environment where the incident occurred.
**Implementation and additional context:**
Security alerts in Microsoft Defender for Cloud:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/security-center-alerts-overview
Use tags to organize your Azure resources:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/azure-resource-manager/resource-group-using-tags |
n/a |
link |
15 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0 |
LT-1 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0_LT-1 |
Microsoft cloud security benchmark LT-1 |
Logging and Threat Detection |
Enable threat detection capabilities |
Shared |
**Security Principle:**
To support threat detection scenarios, monitor all known resource types for known and expected threats and anomalies. Configure your alert filtering and analytics rules to extract high-quality alerts from log data, agents, or other data sources to reduce false positives.
**Azure Guidance:**
Use the threat detection capability of Azure Defender services in Microsoft Defender for Cloud for the respective Azure services.
For threat detection not included in Azure Defender services, refer to the Azure Security Benchmark service baselines for the respective services to enable the threat detection or security alert capabilities within the service. Extract the alerts to your Azure Monitor or Azure Sentinel to build analytics rules, which hunt threats that match specific criteria across your environment.
For Operational Technology (OT) environments that include computers that control or monitor Industrial Control System (ICS) or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) resources, use Defender for IoT to inventory assets and detect threats and vulnerabilities.
For services that do not have a native threat detection capability, consider collecting the data plane logs and analyze the threats through Azure Sentinel.
**Implementation and additional context:**
Introduction to Azure Defender:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/azure-defender
Microsoft Defender for Cloud security alerts reference guide:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/alerts-reference
Create custom analytics rules to detect threats:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/sentinel/tutorial-detect-threats-custom
Cyber threat intelligence with Azure Sentinel:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/architecture/example-scenario/data/sentinel-threat-intelligence |
n/a |
link |
18 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0 |
LT-2 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0_LT-2 |
Microsoft cloud security benchmark LT-2 |
Logging and Threat Detection |
Enable threat detection for identity and access management |
Shared |
**Security Principle:**
Detect threats for identities and access management by monitoring the user and application sign-in and access anomalies. Behavioral patterns such as excessive number of failed login attempts, and deprecated accounts in the subscription, should be alerted.
**Azure Guidance:**
Azure AD provides the following logs that can be viewed in Azure AD reporting or integrated with Azure Monitor, Azure Sentinel or other SIEM/monitoring tools for more sophisticated monitoring and analytics use cases:
- Sign-ins: The sign-ins report provides information about the usage of managed applications and user sign-in activities.
- Audit logs: Provides traceability through logs for all changes done by various features within Azure AD. Examples of audit logs include changes made to any resources within Azure AD like adding or removing users, apps, groups, roles and policies.
- Risky sign-ins: A risky sign-in is an indicator for a sign-in attempt that might have been performed by someone who is not the legitimate owner of a user account.
- Users flagged for risk: A risky user is an indicator for a user account that might have been compromised.
Azure AD also provides an Identity Protection module to detect, and remediate risks related to user accounts and sign-in behaviors. Examples risks include leaked credentials, sign-in from anonymous or malware linked IP addresses, password spray. The policies in the Azure AD Identity Protection allow you to enforce risk-based MFA authentication in conjunction with Azure Conditional Access on user accounts.
In addition, Microsoft Defender for Cloud can be configured to alert on deprecated accounts in the subscription and suspicious activities such as an excessive number of failed authentication attempts. In addition to the basic security hygiene monitoring, Microsoft Defender for Cloud's Threat Protection module can also collect more in-depth security alerts from individual Azure compute resources (such as virtual machines, containers, app service), data resources (such as SQL DB and storage), and Azure service layers. This capability allows you to see account anomalies inside the individual resources.
Note: If you are connecting your on-premises Active Directory for synchronization, use the Microsoft Defender for Identity solution to consume your on-premises Active Directory signals to identify, detect, and investigate advanced threats, compromised identities, and malicious insider actions directed at your organization.
**Implementation and additional context:**
Audit activity reports in Azure AD:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/reports-monitoring/concept-audit-logs
Enable Azure Identity Protection:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/identity-protection/overview-identity-protection
Threat protection in Microsoft Defender for Cloud:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/threat-protection |
n/a |
link |
17 |
| CIS_Azure_1.1.0 |
2.1 |
CIS_Azure_1.1.0_2.1 |
CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark recommendation 2.1 |
2 Security Center |
Ensure that standard pricing tier is selected |
Shared |
The customer is responsible for implementing this recommendation. |
The standard pricing tier enables threat detection for networks and virtual machines, providing threat intelligence, anomaly detection, and behavior analytics in the Azure Security Center. |
link |
15 |
| CIS_Azure_1.3.0 |
2.4 |
CIS_Azure_1.3.0_2.4 |
CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark recommendation 2.4 |
2 Security Center |
Ensure that Azure Defender is set to On for SQL servers on machines |
Shared |
The customer is responsible for implementing this recommendation. |
Turning on Azure Defender enables threat detection for SQL servers on machines, providing threat intelligence, anomaly detection, and behavior analytics in the Azure Security Center. |
link |
9 |
| CIS_Azure_1.4.0 |
2.4 |
CIS_Azure_1.4.0_2.4 |
CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark recommendation 2.4 |
2 Microsoft Defender for Cloud |
Ensure that Microsoft Defender for SQL servers on machines is set to 'On' |
Shared |
The customer is responsible for implementing this recommendation. |
Turning on Microsoft Defender for SQL servers on machines enables threat detection for SQL servers on machines, providing threat intelligence, anomaly detection, and behavior analytics in the Microsoft Defender for Cloud. |
link |
9 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
AU.L2-3.3.1 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_AU.L2-3.3.1 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
39 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
AU.L2-3.3.2 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_AU.L2-3.3.2 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
37 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
AU.L2-3.3.4 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_AU.L2-3.3.4 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
11 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
AU.L2-3.3.5 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_AU.L2-3.3.5 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
11 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
RA.L2-3.11.2 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_RA.L2-3.11.2 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
21 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
RA.L2-3.11.3 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_RA.L2-3.11.3 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
21 |
| 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.L2-3.14.3 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_SI.L2-3.14.3 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
13 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
SI.L2-3.14.6 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_SI.L2-3.14.6 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
29 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
SI.L2-3.14.7 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_SI.L2-3.14.7 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
23 |
| CMMC_L3 |
IR.2.093 |
CMMC_L3_IR.2.093 |
CMMC L3 IR.2.093 |
Incident Response |
Detect and report events. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
The monitoring, identification, and reporting of events are the foundation for incident identification and commence the incident life cycle. Events potentially affect the productivity of organizational assets and, in turn, associated services. These events must be captured and analyzed so that the organization can determine whether an event will become (or has become) an incident that requires organizational action. The extent to which an organization can identify events improves its ability to manage and control incidents and their potential effects. |
link |
19 |
| CMMC_L3 |
RM.2.141 |
CMMC_L3_RM.2.141 |
CMMC L3 RM.2.141 |
Risk Assessment |
Periodically assess the risk to organizational operations (including mission, functions, image, or reputation), organizational assets, and individuals, resulting from the operation of organizational systems and the associated processing, storage, or transmission of CUI. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Clearly defined system boundaries are a prerequisite for effective risk assessments. Such risk assessments consider threats, vulnerabilities, likelihood, and impact to organizational operations, organizational assets, and individuals based on the operation and use of organizational systems. Risk assessments also consider risk from external parties (e.g., service providers, contractors operating systems on behalf of the organization, individuals accessing organizational systems, outsourcing entities). Risk assessments, either formal or informal, can be conducted at the organization level, the mission or business process level, or the system level, and at any phase in the system development life cycle. |
link |
13 |
| CMMC_L3 |
RM.2.142 |
CMMC_L3_RM.2.142 |
CMMC L3 RM.2.142 |
Risk Assessment |
Scan for vulnerabilities in organizational systems and applications periodically and when new vulnerabilities affecting those systems and applications are identified. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Organizations determine the required vulnerability scanning for all system components, ensuring that potential sources of vulnerabilities such as networked printers, scanners, and copiers are not overlooked. The vulnerabilities to be scanned are readily updated as new vulnerabilities are discovered, announced, and scanning methods developed. This process ensures that potential vulnerabilities in the system are identified and addressed as quickly as possible. Vulnerability analyses for custom software applications may require additional approaches such as static analysis, dynamic analysis, binary analysis, or a hybrid of the three approaches. Organizations can employ these analysis approaches in source code reviews and in a variety of tools (e.g., static analysis tools, web-based application scanners, binary analyzers) and in source code reviews. Vulnerability scanning includes: scanning for patch levels; scanning for functions, ports, protocols, and services that should not be accessible to users or devices; and scanning for improperly configured or incorrectly operating information flow control mechanisms.
To facilitate interoperability, organizations consider using products that are Security Content Automated Protocol (SCAP)-validated, scanning tools that express vulnerabilities in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) naming convention, and that employ the Open Vulnerability Assessment Language (OVAL) to determine the presence of system vulnerabilities. Sources for vulnerability information include the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) listing and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD).
Security assessments, such as red team exercises, provide additional sources of potential vulnerabilities for which to scan. Organizations also consider using scanning tools that express vulnerability impact by the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS). In certain situations, the nature of the vulnerability scanning may be more intrusive or the system component that is the subject of the scanning may contain highly sensitive information. Privileged access authorization to selected system components facilitates thorough vulnerability scanning and protects the sensitive nature of such scanning. |
link |
13 |
| CMMC_L3 |
RM.2.143 |
CMMC_L3_RM.2.143 |
CMMC L3 RM.2.143 |
Risk Assessment |
Remediate vulnerabilities in accordance with risk assessments. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Vulnerabilities discovered, for example, via the scanning conducted in response to RM.2.142, are remediated with consideration of the related assessment of risk. The consideration of risk influences the prioritization of remediation efforts and the level of effort to be expended in the remediation for specific vulnerabilities. |
link |
19 |
| CMMC_L3 |
RM.3.144 |
CMMC_L3_RM.3.144 |
CMMC L3 RM.3.144 |
Risk Management |
Periodically perform risk assessments to identify and prioritize risks according to the defined risk categories, risk sources and risk measurement criteria. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibility for implementing this requirement. |
Organizations must evaluate potential cybersecurity risks to operations, assets, and individuals. |
link |
8 |
| CMMC_L3 |
SI.1.213 |
CMMC_L3_SI.1.213 |
CMMC L3 SI.1.213 |
System and Information Integrity |
Perform periodic scans of the information system 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 |
10 |
| CMMC_L3 |
SI.2.216 |
CMMC_L3_SI.2.216 |
CMMC L3 SI.2.216 |
System and Information Integrity |
Monitor organizational systems, including inbound and outbound communications traffic, to detect attacks and indicators of potential attacks. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
System monitoring includes external and internal monitoring. External monitoring includes the observation of events occurring at the system boundary (i.e., part of perimeter defense and boundary protection). Internal monitoring includes the observation of events occurring within the system. Organizations can monitor systems, for example, by observing audit record activities in real time or by observing other system aspects such as access patterns, characteristics of access, and other actions. The monitoring objectives may guide determination of the events. System monitoring capability is achieved through a variety of tools and techniques (e.g., intrusion detection systems, intrusion prevention systems, malicious code protection software, scanning tools, audit record monitoring software, network monitoring software). Strategic locations for monitoring devices include selected perimeter locations and near server farms supporting critical applications, with such devices being employed at managed system interfaces. The granularity of monitoring information collected is based on organizational monitoring objectives and the capability of systems to support such objectives.
System monitoring is an integral part of continuous monitoring and incident response programs. Output from system monitoring serves as input to continuous monitoring and incident response programs. A network connection is any connection with a device that communicates through a network (e.g., local area network, Internet). A remote connection is any connection with a device communicating through an external network (e.g., the Internet). Local, network, and remote connections can be either wired or wireless.
Unusual or unauthorized activities or conditions related to inbound/outbound communications traffic include internal traffic that indicates the presence of malicious code in systems or propagating among system components, the unauthorized exporting of information, or signaling to external systems. Evidence of malicious code is used to identify potentially compromised systems or system components. System monitoring requirements, including the need for specific types of system monitoring, may be referenced in other requirements. |
link |
23 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
AC-2(12) |
FedRAMP_High_R4_AC-2(12) |
FedRAMP High AC-2 (12) |
Access Control |
Account Monitoring / Atypical Usage |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
(a) Monitors information system accounts for [Assignment: organization-defined atypical use]; and
(b) Reports atypical usage of information system accounts to [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles].
Supplemental Guidance: Atypical usage includes, for example, accessing information systems at certain times of the day and from locations that are not consistent with the normal usage patterns of individuals working in organizations. Related control: CA-7. |
link |
14 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
AU-12 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_AU-12 |
FedRAMP High AU-12 |
Audit And Accountability |
Audit Generation |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system:
a. Provides audit record generation capability for the auditable events defined in AU-2 a. at [Assignment: organization-defined information system components];
b. Allows [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles] to select which auditable events are to be audited by specific components of the information system; and
c. Generates audit records for the events defined in AU-2 d. with the content defined in AU-3.
Supplemental Guidance: Audit records can be generated from many different information system components. The list of audited events is the set of events for which audits are to be generated. These events are typically a subset of all events for which the information system is capable of generating audit records. Related controls: AC-3, AU-2, AU-3, AU-6, AU-7.
References: None. |
link |
38 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
AU-12(1) |
FedRAMP_High_R4_AU-12(1) |
FedRAMP High AU-12 (1) |
Audit And Accountability |
System-Wide / Time-Correlated Audit Trail |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system compiles audit records from [Assignment: organization-defined information system components] into a system-wide (logical or physical) audit trail that is time- correlated to within [Assignment: organization-defined level of tolerance for relationship between time stamps of individual records in the audit trail].
Supplemental Guidance: Audit trails are time-correlated if the time stamps in the individual audit records can be reliably related to the time stamps in other audit records to achieve a time ordering of the records within organizational tolerances. Related controls: AU-8, AU-12. |
link |
35 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
AU-6 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_AU-6 |
FedRAMP High AU-6 |
Audit And Accountability |
Audit Review, Analysis, And Reporting |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Reviews and analyzes information system audit records [Assignment: organization-defined frequency] for indications of [Assignment: organization-defined inappropriate or unusual activity]; and
b. Reports findings to [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles].
Supplemental Guidance: Audit review, analysis, and reporting covers information security-related auditing performed by organizations including, for example, auditing that results from monitoring of account usage, remote access, wireless connectivity, mobile device connection, configuration settings, system component inventory, use of maintenance tools and nonlocal maintenance, physical access, temperature and humidity, equipment delivery and removal, communications at the information system boundaries, use of mobile code, and use of VoIP. Findings can be reported to organizational entities that include, for example, incident response team, help desk, information security group/department. If organizations are prohibited from reviewing and analyzing audit information or unable to conduct such activities (e.g., in certain national security applications or systems), the review/analysis may be carried out by other organizations granted such authority. Related controls: AC-2, AC-3, AC-6, AC-17, AT-3, AU-7, AU-16, CA-7, CM-5, CM-10, CM-11, IA-3, IA-5, IR-5, IR-6, MA-4, MP-4, PE-3, PE-6, PE-14, PE-16, RA-5, SC-7, SC-18, SC-19, SI-3, SI-4, SI-7.
References: None. |
link |
26 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
AU-6(4) |
FedRAMP_High_R4_AU-6(4) |
FedRAMP High AU-6 (4) |
Audit And Accountability |
Central Review And Analysis |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system provides the capability to centrally review and analyze audit records from multiple components within the system.
Supplemental Guidance: Automated mechanisms for centralized reviews and analyses include, for example, Security Information Management products. Related controls: AU-2, AU-12. |
link |
34 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
AU-6(5) |
FedRAMP_High_R4_AU-6(5) |
FedRAMP High AU-6 (5) |
Audit And Accountability |
Integration / Scanning And Monitoring Capabilities |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization integrates analysis of audit records with analysis of [Selection (one or more): vulnerability scanning information; performance data; information system monitoring information; [Assignment: organization-defined data/information collected from other sources]] to further enhance the ability to identify inappropriate or unusual activity.
Supplemental Guidance: This control enhancement does not require vulnerability scanning, the generation of performance data, or information system monitoring. Rather, the enhancement requires that the analysis of information being otherwise produced in these areas is integrated with the analysis of audit information. Security Event and Information Management System tools can facilitate audit record aggregation/consolidation from multiple information system components as well as audit record correlation and analysis. The use of standardized audit record analysis scripts developed by organizations (with localized script adjustments, as necessary) provides more cost-effective approaches for analyzing audit record information collected. The correlation of audit record information with vulnerability scanning information is important in determining the veracity of vulnerability scans and correlating attack detection events with scanning results. Correlation with performance data can help uncover denial of service attacks or cyber attacks resulting in unauthorized use of resources. Correlation with system monitoring information can assist in uncovering attacks and in better relating audit information to operational situations. Related controls: AU-12, IR-4, RA-5. |
link |
35 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
IR-4 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_IR-4 |
FedRAMP High IR-4 |
Incident Response |
Incident Handling |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Implements an incident handling capability for security incidents that includes preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication, and recovery;
b. Coordinates incident handling activities with contingency planning activities; and
c. Incorporates lessons learned from ongoing incident handling activities into incident response procedures, training, and testing/exercises, and implements the resulting changes accordingly.
Supplemental Guidance: Organizations recognize that incident response capability is dependent on the capabilities of organizational information systems and the mission/business processes being supported by those systems. Therefore, organizations consider incident response as part of the definition, design, and development of mission/business processes and information systems. Incident-related information can be obtained from a variety of sources including, for example, audit monitoring, network monitoring, physical access monitoring, user/administrator reports, and reported supply chain events. Effective incident handling capability includes coordination among many organizational entities including, for example, mission/business owners, information system owners, authorizing officials, human resources offices, physical and personnel security offices, legal departments, operations personnel, procurement offices, and the risk executive (function). Related controls: AU-6, CM-6, CP-2, CP-4, IR-2, IR-3, IR-8, PE-6, SC-5, SC-7, SI-3, SI-4, SI-7.
References: Executive Order 13587; NIST Special Publication 800-61. |
link |
25 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
IR-5 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_IR-5 |
FedRAMP High IR-5 |
Incident Response |
Incident Monitoring |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization tracks and documents information system security incidents.
Supplemental Guidance: Documenting information system security incidents includes, for example, maintaining records about each incident, the status of the incident, and other pertinent information necessary for forensics, evaluating incident details, trends, and handling. Incident information can be obtained from a variety of sources including, for example, incident reports, incident response teams, audit monitoring, network monitoring, physical access monitoring, and user/administrator reports. Related controls: AU-6, IR-8, PE-6, SC-5, SC-7, SI-3, SI-4, SI-7.
References: NIST Special Publication 800-61. |
link |
14 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
RA-5 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_RA-5 |
FedRAMP High RA-5 |
Risk Assessment |
Vulnerability Scanning |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Scans for vulnerabilities in the information system and hosted applications [Assignment: organization-defined frequency and/or randomly in accordance with organization-defined process] and when new vulnerabilities potentially affecting the system/applications are identified and reported;
b. Employs vulnerability scanning tools and techniques that facilitate interoperability among tools and automate parts of the vulnerability management process by using standards for:
1. Enumerating platforms, software flaws, and improper configurations;
2. Formatting checklists and test procedures; and
3. Measuring vulnerability impact;
c. Analyzes vulnerability scan reports and results from security control assessments;
d. Remediates legitimate vulnerabilities [Assignment: organization-defined response times], in accordance with an organizational assessment of risk; and
e. Shares information obtained from the vulnerability scanning process and security control assessments with [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles] to help eliminate similar vulnerabilities in other information systems (i.e., systemic weaknesses or deficiencies).
Supplemental Guidance: Security categorization of information systems guides the frequency and comprehensiveness of vulnerability scans. Organizations determine the required vulnerability scanning for all information system components, ensuring that potential sources of vulnerabilities such as networked printers, scanners, and copiers are not overlooked. Vulnerability analyses for custom software applications may require additional approaches such as static analysis, dynamic analysis, binary analysis, or a hybrid of the three approaches. Organizations can employ these analysis approaches in a variety of tools (e.g., web-based application scanners, static analysis tools, binary analyzers) and in source code reviews. Vulnerability scanning includes, for example: (i) scanning for patch levels; (ii) scanning for functions, ports, protocols, and services that should not be accessible to users or devices; and (iii) scanning for improperly configured or incorrectly operating information flow control mechanisms. Organizations consider using tools that express vulnerabilities in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) naming convention and that use the Open Vulnerability Assessment Language (OVAL) to determine/test for the presence of vulnerabilities. Suggested sources for vulnerability information include the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) listing and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). In addition, security control assessments such as red team exercises provide other sources of potential vulnerabilities for which to scan. Organizations also consider using tools that express vulnerability impact by the
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS). Related controls: CA-2, CA-7, CM-4, CM-6, RA-2, RA-3, SA-11, SI-2.
References: NIST Special Publications 800-40, 800-70, 800-115; Web: http://cwe.mitre.org, http://nvd.nist.gov. |
link |
23 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
SI-2 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_SI-2 |
FedRAMP High SI-2 |
System And Information Integrity |
Flaw Remediation |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Identifies, reports, and corrects information system flaws;
b. Tests software and firmware updates related to flaw remediation for effectiveness and potential side effects before installation;
c. Installs security-relevant software and firmware updates within [Assignment: organization- defined time period] of the release of the updates; and
d. Incorporates flaw remediation into the organizational configuration management process.
Supplemental Guidance: Organizations identify information systems affected by announced software flaws including potential vulnerabilities resulting from those flaws, and report this information to designated organizational personnel with information security responsibilities. Security-relevant software updates include, for example, patches, service packs, hot fixes, and anti-virus signatures. Organizations also address flaws discovered during security assessments, continuous monitoring, incident response activities, and system error handling. Organizations take advantage of available resources such as the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) or Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) databases in remediating flaws discovered in organizational information systems. By incorporating flaw remediation into ongoing configuration management processes, required/anticipated remediation actions can be tracked and verified. Flaw remediation actions that can be tracked and verified include, for example, determining whether organizations follow US-CERT guidance and Information Assurance Vulnerability Alerts. Organization-defined time periods for updating security-relevant software and firmware may vary based on a variety of factors including, for example, the security category of the information system or 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. Organizations determine the degree and type of testing needed for the specific type of flaw remediation activity under consideration and also the types of changes that are to be configuration-managed. In some situations, organizations may determine that the testing of software and/or firmware updates is not necessary or practical,
for example, when implementing simple anti-virus signature updates. Organizations may also consider in testing decisions, whether security-relevant software or firmware updates are obtained from authorized sources with appropriate digital signatures. Related controls: CA-2, CA-7, CM-3, CM-5, CM-8, MA-2, IR-4, RA-5, SA-10, SA-11, SI-11. |
link |
20 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
SI-4 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_SI-4 |
FedRAMP High SI-4 |
System And Information Integrity |
Information System Monitoring |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Monitors the information system to detect:
1. Attacks and indicators of potential attacks in accordance with [Assignment: organization- defined monitoring objectives]; and
2. Unauthorized local, network, and remote connections;
b. Identifies unauthorized use of the information system through [Assignment: organization- defined techniques and methods];
c. Deploys monitoring devices: (i) strategically within the information system to collect organization-determined essential information; and (ii) at ad hoc locations within the system to track specific types of transactions of interest to the organization;
d. Protects information obtained from intrusion-monitoring tools from unauthorized access, modification, and deletion;
e. Heightens the level of information system monitoring activity whenever there is an indication of increased risk to organizational operations and assets, individuals, other organizations, or the Nation based on law enforcement information, intelligence information, or other credible sources of information;
f. Obtains legal opinion with regard to information system monitoring activities in accordance with applicable federal laws, Executive Orders, directives, policies, or regulations; and
g. Provides [Assignment: or ganization-defined information system monitoring information] to [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles] [Selection (one or more): as needed; [Assignment: organization-defined frequency]].
Supplemental Guidance: Information system monitoring includes external and internal monitoring. External monitoring includes the observation of events occurring at the information system boundary (i.e., part of perimeter defense and boundary protection). Internal monitoring includes the observation of events occurring within the information system. Organizations can monitor information systems, for example, by observing audit activities in real time or by observing other system aspects such as access patterns, characteristics of access, and other actions. The monitoring objectives may guide determination of the events. Information system monitoring capability is achieved through a variety of tools and techniques (e.g., intrusion detection systems, intrusion prevention systems, malicious code protection software, scanning tools, audit record monitoring software, network monitoring software). Strategic locations for monitoring devices include, for example, selected perimeter locations and near server farms supporting critical applications, with such devices typically being employed at the managed interfaces associated with controls SC-7 and AC-17. Einstein network monitoring devices from the Department of Homeland Security can also be included as monitoring devices. The granularity of monitoring information collected is based on organizational monitoring objectives and the capability of information systems to support such objectives. Specific types of transactions of interest include, for example, Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) traffic that bypasses HTTP proxies. Information system monitoring is an integral part of organizational continuous monitoring and incident response programs. Output from system monitoring serves as input to continuous monitoring and incident response programs. A network connection is any connection with a device that communicates through a network (e.g., local area network, Internet). A remote connection is any connection with a device communicating through an external network (e.g., the Internet). Local, network, and remote connections can be either wired or wireless. Related controls: AC-3, AC-4, AC-8, AC-17, AU-2, AU-6, AU-7, AU-9, AU-12, CA-7, IR-4, PE-3, RA-5, SC-7, SC-26, SC-35, SI-3, SI-7.
References: NIST Special Publications 800-61, 800-83, 800-92, 800-94, 800-137. |
link |
26 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
AC-2(12) |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_AC-2(12) |
FedRAMP Moderate AC-2 (12) |
Access Control |
Account Monitoring / Atypical Usage |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
(a) Monitors information system accounts for [Assignment: organization-defined atypical use]; and
(b) Reports atypical usage of information system accounts to [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles].
Supplemental Guidance: Atypical usage includes, for example, accessing information systems at certain times of the day and from locations that are not consistent with the normal usage patterns of individuals working in organizations. Related control: CA-7. |
link |
14 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
AU-12 |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_AU-12 |
FedRAMP Moderate AU-12 |
Audit And Accountability |
Audit Generation |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system:
a. Provides audit record generation capability for the auditable events defined in AU-2 a. at [Assignment: organization-defined information system components];
b. Allows [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles] to select which auditable events are to be audited by specific components of the information system; and
c. Generates audit records for the events defined in AU-2 d. with the content defined in AU-3.
Supplemental Guidance: Audit records can be generated from many different information system components. The list of audited events is the set of events for which audits are to be generated. These events are typically a subset of all events for which the information system is capable of generating audit records. Related controls: AC-3, AU-2, AU-3, AU-6, AU-7.
References: None. |
link |
38 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
AU-6 |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_AU-6 |
FedRAMP Moderate AU-6 |
Audit And Accountability |
Audit Review, Analysis, And Reporting |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Reviews and analyzes information system audit records [Assignment: organization-defined frequency] for indications of [Assignment: organization-defined inappropriate or unusual activity]; and
b. Reports findings to [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles].
Supplemental Guidance: Audit review, analysis, and reporting covers information security-related auditing performed by organizations including, for example, auditing that results from monitoring of account usage, remote access, wireless connectivity, mobile device connection, configuration settings, system component inventory, use of maintenance tools and nonlocal maintenance, physical access, temperature and humidity, equipment delivery and removal, communications at the information system boundaries, use of mobile code, and use of VoIP. Findings can be reported to organizational entities that include, for example, incident response team, help desk, information security group/department. If organizations are prohibited from reviewing and analyzing audit information or unable to conduct such activities (e.g., in certain national security applications or systems), the review/analysis may be carried out by other organizations granted such authority. Related controls: AC-2, AC-3, AC-6, AC-17, AT-3, AU-7, AU-16, CA-7, CM-5, CM-10, CM-11, IA-3, IA-5, IR-5, IR-6, MA-4, MP-4, PE-3, PE-6, PE-14, PE-16, RA-5, SC-7, SC-18, SC-19, SI-3, SI-4, SI-7.
References: None. |
link |
26 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
IR-4 |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_IR-4 |
FedRAMP Moderate IR-4 |
Incident Response |
Incident Handling |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Implements an incident handling capability for security incidents that includes preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication, and recovery;
b. Coordinates incident handling activities with contingency planning activities; and
c. Incorporates lessons learned from ongoing incident handling activities into incident response procedures, training, and testing/exercises, and implements the resulting changes accordingly.
Supplemental Guidance: Organizations recognize that incident response capability is dependent on the capabilities of organizational information systems and the mission/business processes being supported by those systems. Therefore, organizations consider incident response as part of the definition, design, and development of mission/business processes and information systems. Incident-related information can be obtained from a variety of sources including, for example, audit monitoring, network monitoring, physical access monitoring, user/administrator reports, and reported supply chain events. Effective incident handling capability includes coordination among many organizational entities including, for example, mission/business owners, information system owners, authorizing officials, human resources offices, physical and personnel security offices, legal departments, operations personnel, procurement offices, and the risk executive (function). Related controls: AU-6, CM-6, CP-2, CP-4, IR-2, IR-3, IR-8, PE-6, SC-5, SC-7, SI-3, SI-4, SI-7.
References: Executive Order 13587; NIST Special Publication 800-61. |
link |
25 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
IR-5 |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_IR-5 |
FedRAMP Moderate IR-5 |
Incident Response |
Incident Monitoring |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization tracks and documents information system security incidents.
Supplemental Guidance: Documenting information system security incidents includes, for example, maintaining records about each incident, the status of the incident, and other pertinent information necessary for forensics, evaluating incident details, trends, and handling. Incident information can be obtained from a variety of sources including, for example, incident reports, incident response teams, audit monitoring, network monitoring, physical access monitoring, and user/administrator reports. Related controls: AU-6, IR-8, PE-6, SC-5, SC-7, SI-3, SI-4, SI-7.
References: NIST Special Publication 800-61. |
link |
14 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
RA-5 |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_RA-5 |
FedRAMP Moderate RA-5 |
Risk Assessment |
Vulnerability Scanning |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Scans for vulnerabilities in the information system and hosted applications [Assignment: organization-defined frequency and/or randomly in accordance with organization-defined process] and when new vulnerabilities potentially affecting the system/applications are identified and reported;
b. Employs vulnerability scanning tools and techniques that facilitate interoperability among tools and automate parts of the vulnerability management process by using standards for:
1. Enumerating platforms, software flaws, and improper configurations;
2. Formatting checklists and test procedures; and
3. Measuring vulnerability impact;
c. Analyzes vulnerability scan reports and results from security control assessments;
d. Remediates legitimate vulnerabilities [Assignment: organization-defined response times], in accordance with an organizational assessment of risk; and
e. Shares information obtained from the vulnerability scanning process and security control assessments with [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles] to help eliminate similar vulnerabilities in other information systems (i.e., systemic weaknesses or deficiencies).
Supplemental Guidance: Security categorization of information systems guides the frequency and comprehensiveness of vulnerability scans. Organizations determine the required vulnerability scanning for all information system components, ensuring that potential sources of vulnerabilities such as networked printers, scanners, and copiers are not overlooked. Vulnerability analyses for custom software applications may require additional approaches such as static analysis, dynamic analysis, binary analysis, or a hybrid of the three approaches. Organizations can employ these analysis approaches in a variety of tools (e.g., web-based application scanners, static analysis tools, binary analyzers) and in source code reviews. Vulnerability scanning includes, for example: (i) scanning for patch levels; (ii) scanning for functions, ports, protocols, and services that should not be accessible to users or devices; and (iii) scanning for improperly configured or incorrectly operating information flow control mechanisms. Organizations consider using tools that express vulnerabilities in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) naming convention and that use the Open Vulnerability Assessment Language (OVAL) to determine/test for the presence of vulnerabilities. Suggested sources for vulnerability information include the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) listing and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). In addition, security control assessments such as red team exercises provide other sources of potential vulnerabilities for which to scan. Organizations also consider using tools that express vulnerability impact by the
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS). Related controls: CA-2, CA-7, CM-4, CM-6, RA-2, RA-3, SA-11, SI-2.
References: NIST Special Publications 800-40, 800-70, 800-115; Web: http://cwe.mitre.org, http://nvd.nist.gov. |
link |
23 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
SI-2 |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_SI-2 |
FedRAMP Moderate SI-2 |
System And Information Integrity |
Flaw Remediation |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Identifies, reports, and corrects information system flaws;
b. Tests software and firmware updates related to flaw remediation for effectiveness and potential side effects before installation;
c. Installs security-relevant software and firmware updates within [Assignment: organization- defined time period] of the release of the updates; and
d. Incorporates flaw remediation into the organizational configuration management process.
Supplemental Guidance: Organizations identify information systems affected by announced software flaws including potential vulnerabilities resulting from those flaws, and report this information to designated organizational personnel with information security responsibilities. Security-relevant software updates include, for example, patches, service packs, hot fixes, and anti-virus signatures. Organizations also address flaws discovered during security assessments, continuous monitoring, incident response activities, and system error handling. Organizations take advantage of available resources such as the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) or Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) databases in remediating flaws discovered in organizational information systems. By incorporating flaw remediation into ongoing configuration management processes, required/anticipated remediation actions can be tracked and verified. Flaw remediation actions that can be tracked and verified include, for example, determining whether organizations follow US-CERT guidance and Information Assurance Vulnerability Alerts. Organization-defined time periods for updating security-relevant software and firmware may vary based on a variety of factors including, for example, the security category of the information system or 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. Organizations determine the degree and type of testing needed for the specific type of flaw remediation activity under consideration and also the types of changes that are to be configuration-managed. In some situations, organizations may determine that the testing of software and/or firmware updates is not necessary or practical,
for example, when implementing simple anti-virus signature updates. Organizations may also consider in testing decisions, whether security-relevant software or firmware updates are obtained from authorized sources with appropriate digital signatures. Related controls: CA-2, CA-7, CM-3, CM-5, CM-8, MA-2, IR-4, RA-5, SA-10, SA-11, SI-11. |
link |
20 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
SI-4 |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_SI-4 |
FedRAMP Moderate SI-4 |
System And Information Integrity |
Information System Monitoring |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Monitors the information system to detect:
1. Attacks and indicators of potential attacks in accordance with [Assignment: organization- defined monitoring objectives]; and
2. Unauthorized local, network, and remote connections;
b. Identifies unauthorized use of the information system through [Assignment: organization- defined techniques and methods];
c. Deploys monitoring devices: (i) strategically within the information system to collect organization-determined essential information; and (ii) at ad hoc locations within the system to track specific types of transactions of interest to the organization;
d. Protects information obtained from intrusion-monitoring tools from unauthorized access, modification, and deletion;
e. Heightens the level of information system monitoring activity whenever there is an indication of increased risk to organizational operations and assets, individuals, other organizations, or the Nation based on law enforcement information, intelligence information, or other credible sources of information;
f. Obtains legal opinion with regard to information system monitoring activities in accordance with applicable federal laws, Executive Orders, directives, policies, or regulations; and
g. Provides [Assignment: or ganization-defined information system monitoring information] to [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles] [Selection (one or more): as needed; [Assignment: organization-defined frequency]].
Supplemental Guidance: Information system monitoring includes external and internal monitoring. External monitoring includes the observation of events occurring at the information system boundary (i.e., part of perimeter defense and boundary protection). Internal monitoring includes the observation of events occurring within the information system. Organizations can monitor information systems, for example, by observing audit activities in real time or by observing other system aspects such as access patterns, characteristics of access, and other actions. The monitoring objectives may guide determination of the events. Information system monitoring capability is achieved through a variety of tools and techniques (e.g., intrusion detection systems, intrusion prevention systems, malicious code protection software, scanning tools, audit record monitoring software, network monitoring software). Strategic locations for monitoring devices include, for example, selected perimeter locations and near server farms supporting critical applications, with such devices typically being employed at the managed interfaces associated with controls SC-7 and AC-17. Einstein network monitoring devices from the Department of Homeland Security can also be included as monitoring devices. The granularity of monitoring information collected is based on organizational monitoring objectives and the capability of information systems to support such objectives. Specific types of transactions of interest include, for example, Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) traffic that bypasses HTTP proxies. Information system monitoring is an integral part of organizational continuous monitoring and incident response programs. Output from system monitoring serves as input to continuous monitoring and incident response programs. A network connection is any connection with a device that communicates through a network (e.g., local area network, Internet). A remote connection is any connection with a device communicating through an external network (e.g., the Internet). Local, network, and remote connections can be either wired or wireless. Related controls: AC-3, AC-4, AC-8, AC-17, AU-2, AU-6, AU-7, AU-9, AU-12, CA-7, IR-4, PE-3, RA-5, SC-7, SC-26, SC-35, SI-3, SI-7.
References: NIST Special Publications 800-61, 800-83, 800-92, 800-94, 800-137. |
link |
26 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.11.2 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.11.2 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.11.2 |
Risk Assessment |
Scan for vulnerabilities in organizational systems and applications periodically and when new vulnerabilities affecting those systems and applications are identified. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Organizations determine the required vulnerability scanning for all system components, ensuring that potential sources of vulnerabilities such as networked printers, scanners, and copiers are not overlooked. The vulnerabilities to be scanned are readily updated as new vulnerabilities are discovered, announced, and scanning methods developed. This process ensures that potential vulnerabilities in the system are identified and addressed as quickly as possible. Vulnerability analyses for custom software applications may require additional approaches such as static analysis, dynamic analysis, binary analysis, or a hybrid of the three approaches. Organizations can employ these analysis approaches in source code reviews and in a variety of tools (e.g., static analysis tools, web-based application scanners, binary analyzers) and in source code reviews. Vulnerability scanning includes: scanning for patch levels; scanning for functions, ports, protocols, and services that should not be accessible to users or devices; and scanning for improperly configured or incorrectly operating information flow control mechanisms. To facilitate interoperability, organizations consider using products that are Security Content Automated Protocol (SCAP)-validated, scanning tools that express vulnerabilities in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) naming convention, and that employ the Open Vulnerability Assessment Language (OVAL) to determine the presence of system vulnerabilities. Sources for vulnerability information include the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) listing and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Security assessments, such as red team exercises, provide additional sources of potential vulnerabilities for which to scan. Organizations also consider using scanning tools that express vulnerability impact by the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS). In certain situations, the nature of the vulnerability scanning may be more intrusive or the system component that is the subject of the scanning may contain highly sensitive information. Privileged access authorization to selected system components facilitates thorough vulnerability scanning and protects the sensitive nature of such scanning. [SP 800-40] provides guidance on vulnerability management. |
link |
24 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.11.3 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.11.3 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.11.3 |
Risk Assessment |
Remediate vulnerabilities in accordance with risk assessments. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Vulnerabilities discovered, for example, via the scanning conducted in response to 3.11.2, are remediated with consideration of the related assessment of risk. The consideration of risk influences the prioritization of remediation efforts and the level of effort to be expended in the remediation for specific vulnerabilities. |
link |
23 |
| 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 |
.14.3 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.14.3 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.14.3 |
System and Information Integrity |
Monitor system security alerts and advisories and take action in response. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
There are many publicly available sources of system security alerts and advisories. For example, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) generates security alerts and advisories to maintain situational awareness across the federal government and in nonfederal organizations. Software vendors, subscription services, and industry information sharing and analysis centers (ISACs) may also provide security alerts and advisories. Examples of response actions include notifying relevant external organizations, for example, external mission/business partners, supply chain partners, external service providers, and peer or supporting organizations. [SP 800-161] provides guidance on supply chain risk management. |
link |
16 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.14.6 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.14.6 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.14.6 |
System and Information Integrity |
Monitor organizational systems, including inbound and outbound communications traffic, to detect attacks and indicators of potential attacks. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
System monitoring includes external and internal monitoring. External monitoring includes the observation of events occurring at the system boundary (i.e., part of perimeter defense and boundary protection). Internal monitoring includes the observation of events occurring within the system. Organizations can monitor systems, for example, by observing audit record activities in real time or by observing other system aspects such as access patterns, characteristics of access, and other actions. The monitoring objectives may guide determination of the events. System monitoring capability is achieved through a variety of tools and techniques (e.g., intrusion detection systems, intrusion prevention systems, malicious code protection software, scanning tools, audit record monitoring software, network monitoring software). Strategic locations for monitoring devices include selected perimeter locations and near server farms supporting critical applications, with such devices being employed at managed system interfaces. The granularity of monitoring information collected is based on organizational monitoring objectives and the capability of systems to support such objectives. System monitoring is an integral part of continuous monitoring and incident response programs. Output from system monitoring serves as input to continuous monitoring and incident response programs. A network connection is any connection with a device that communicates through a network (e.g., local area network, Internet). A remote connection is any connection with a device communicating through an external network (e.g., the Internet). Local, network, and remote connections can be either wired or wireless. Unusual or unauthorized activities or conditions related to inbound/outbound communications traffic include internal traffic that indicates the presence of malicious code in systems or propagating among system components, the unauthorized exporting of information, or signaling to external systems. Evidence of malicious code is used to identify potentially compromised systems or system components. System monitoring requirements, including the need for specific types of system monitoring, may be referenced in other requirements. [SP 800-94] provides guidance on intrusion detection and prevention systems. |
link |
31 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.14.7 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.14.7 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.14.7 |
System and Information Integrity |
Identify unauthorized use of organizational systems. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
System monitoring includes external and internal monitoring. System monitoring can detect unauthorized use of organizational systems. System monitoring is an integral part of continuous monitoring and incident response programs. Monitoring is achieved through a variety of tools and techniques (e.g., intrusion detection systems, intrusion prevention systems, malicious code protection software, scanning tools, audit record monitoring software, network monitoring software). Output from system monitoring serves as input to continuous monitoring and incident response programs. Unusual/unauthorized activities or conditions related to inbound and outbound communications traffic include internal traffic that indicates the presence of malicious code in systems or propagating among system components, the unauthorized exporting of information, or signaling to external systems. Evidence of malicious code is used to identify potentially compromised systems or system components. System monitoring requirements, including the need for specific types of system monitoring, may be referenced in other requirements. [SP 800-94] provides guidance on intrusion detection and prevention systems. |
link |
24 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.3.1 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.3.1 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.3.1 |
Audit and Accountability |
Create and retain system audit logs and records to the extent needed to enable the monitoring, analysis, investigation, and reporting of unlawful or unauthorized system activity |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
An event is any observable occurrence in a system, which includes unlawful or unauthorized system activity. Organizations identify event types for which a logging functionality is needed as those events which are significant and relevant to the security of systems and the environments in which those systems operate to meet specific and ongoing auditing needs. Event types can include password changes, failed logons or failed accesses related to systems, administrative privilege usage, or third-party credential usage. In determining event types that require logging, organizations consider the monitoring and auditing appropriate for each of the CUI security requirements. Monitoring and auditing requirements can be balanced with other system needs. For example, organizations may determine that systems must have the capability to log every file access both successful and unsuccessful, but not activate that capability except for specific circumstances due to the potential burden on system performance. Audit records can be generated at various levels of abstraction, including at the packet level as information traverses the network. Selecting the appropriate level of abstraction is a critical aspect of an audit logging capability and can facilitate the identification of root causes to problems. Organizations consider in the definition of event types, the logging necessary to cover related events such as the steps in distributed, transaction-based processes (e.g., processes that are distributed across multiple organizations) and actions that occur in service-oriented or cloud-based architectures. Audit record content that may be necessary to satisfy this requirement includes time stamps, source and destination addresses, user or process identifiers, event descriptions, success or fail indications, filenames involved, and access control or flow control rules invoked. Event outcomes can include indicators of event success or failure and event-specific results (e.g., the security state of the system after the event occurred). Detailed information that organizations may consider in audit records includes full text recording of privileged commands or the individual identities of group account users. Organizations consider limiting the additional audit log information to only that information explicitly needed for specific audit requirements. This facilitates the use of audit trails and audit logs by not including information that could potentially be misleading or could make it more difficult to locate information of interest. Audit logs are reviewed and analyzed as often as needed to provide important information to organizations to facilitate risk-based decision making. [SP 800-92] provides guidance on security log management. |
link |
54 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.3.2 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.3.2 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.3.2 |
Audit and Accountability |
Ensure that the actions of individual system users can be uniquely traced to those users, so they can be held accountable for their actions. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
This requirement ensures that the contents of the audit record include the information needed to link the audit event to the actions of an individual to the extent feasible. Organizations consider logging for traceability including results from monitoring of account usage, remote access, wireless connectivity, mobile device connection, communications at system boundaries, configuration settings, physical access, nonlocal maintenance, use of maintenance tools, temperature and humidity, equipment delivery and removal, system component inventory, use of mobile code, and use of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). |
link |
40 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.3.4 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.3.4 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.3.4 |
Audit and Accountability |
Alert in the event of an audit logging process failure. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Audit logging process failures include software and hardware errors, failures in the audit record capturing mechanisms, and audit record storage capacity being reached or exceeded. This requirement applies to each audit record data storage repository (i.e., distinct system component where audit records are stored), the total audit record storage capacity of organizations (i.e., all audit record data storage repositories combined), or both. |
link |
13 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.3.5 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.3.5 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.3.5 |
Audit and Accountability |
Correlate audit record review, analysis, and reporting processes for investigation and response to indications of unlawful, unauthorized, suspicious, or unusual activity. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Correlating audit record review, analysis, and reporting processes helps to ensure that they do not operate independently, but rather collectively. Regarding the assessment of a given organizational system, the requirement is agnostic as to whether this correlation is applied at the system level or at the organization level across all systems. |
link |
14 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
AC-2(12) |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_AC-2(12) |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 AC-2 (12) |
Access Control |
Account Monitoring / Atypical Usage |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
(a) Monitors information system accounts for [Assignment: organization-defined atypical use]; and
(b) Reports atypical usage of information system accounts to [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles].
Supplemental Guidance: Atypical usage includes, for example, accessing information systems at certain times of the day and from locations that are not consistent with the normal usage patterns of individuals working in organizations. Related control: CA-7. |
link |
14 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
AU-12 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_AU-12 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 AU-12 |
Audit And Accountability |
Audit Generation |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system:
a. Provides audit record generation capability for the auditable events defined in AU-2 a. at [Assignment: organization-defined information system components];
b. Allows [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles] to select which auditable events are to be audited by specific components of the information system; and
c. Generates audit records for the events defined in AU-2 d. with the content defined in AU-3.
Supplemental Guidance: Audit records can be generated from many different information system components. The list of audited events is the set of events for which audits are to be generated. These events are typically a subset of all events for which the information system is capable of generating audit records. Related controls: AC-3, AU-2, AU-3, AU-6, AU-7.
References: None. |
link |
38 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
AU-12(1) |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_AU-12(1) |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 AU-12 (1) |
Audit And Accountability |
System-Wide / Time-Correlated Audit Trail |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system compiles audit records from [Assignment: organization-defined information system components] into a system-wide (logical or physical) audit trail that is time- correlated to within [Assignment: organization-defined level of tolerance for relationship between time stamps of individual records in the audit trail].
Supplemental Guidance: Audit trails are time-correlated if the time stamps in the individual audit records can be reliably related to the time stamps in other audit records to achieve a time ordering of the records within organizational tolerances. Related controls: AU-8, AU-12. |
link |
35 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
AU-6 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_AU-6 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 AU-6 |
Audit And Accountability |
Audit Review, Analysis, And Reporting |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Reviews and analyzes information system audit records [Assignment: organization-defined frequency] for indications of [Assignment: organization-defined inappropriate or unusual activity]; and
b. Reports findings to [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles].
Supplemental Guidance: Audit review, analysis, and reporting covers information security-related auditing performed by organizations including, for example, auditing that results from monitoring of account usage, remote access, wireless connectivity, mobile device connection, configuration settings, system component inventory, use of maintenance tools and nonlocal maintenance, physical access, temperature and humidity, equipment delivery and removal, communications at the information system boundaries, use of mobile code, and use of VoIP. Findings can be reported to organizational entities that include, for example, incident response team, help desk, information security group/department. If organizations are prohibited from reviewing and analyzing audit information or unable to conduct such activities (e.g., in certain national security applications or systems), the review/analysis may be carried out by other organizations granted such authority. Related controls: AC-2, AC-3, AC-6, AC-17, AT-3, AU-7, AU-16, CA-7, CM-5, CM-10, CM-11, IA-3, IA-5, IR-5, IR-6, MA-4, MP-4, PE-3, PE-6, PE-14, PE-16, RA-5, SC-7, SC-18, SC-19, SI-3, SI-4, SI-7.
References: None. |
link |
26 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
AU-6(4) |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_AU-6(4) |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 AU-6 (4) |
Audit And Accountability |
Central Review And Analysis |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system provides the capability to centrally review and analyze audit records from multiple components within the system.
Supplemental Guidance: Automated mechanisms for centralized reviews and analyses include, for example, Security Information Management products. Related controls: AU-2, AU-12. |
link |
34 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
AU-6(5) |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_AU-6(5) |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 AU-6 (5) |
Audit And Accountability |
Integration / Scanning And Monitoring Capabilities |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization integrates analysis of audit records with analysis of [Selection (one or more): vulnerability scanning information; performance data; information system monitoring information; [Assignment: organization-defined data/information collected from other sources]] to further enhance the ability to identify inappropriate or unusual activity.
Supplemental Guidance: This control enhancement does not require vulnerability scanning, the generation of performance data, or information system monitoring. Rather, the enhancement requires that the analysis of information being otherwise produced in these areas is integrated with the analysis of audit information. Security Event and Information Management System tools can facilitate audit record aggregation/consolidation from multiple information system components as well as audit record correlation and analysis. The use of standardized audit record analysis scripts developed by organizations (with localized script adjustments, as necessary) provides more cost-effective approaches for analyzing audit record information collected. The correlation of audit record information with vulnerability scanning information is important in determining the veracity of vulnerability scans and correlating attack detection events with scanning results. Correlation with performance data can help uncover denial of service attacks or cyber attacks resulting in unauthorized use of resources. Correlation with system monitoring information can assist in uncovering attacks and in better relating audit information to operational situations. Related controls: AU-12, IR-4, RA-5. |
link |
35 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
IR-4 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_IR-4 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 IR-4 |
Incident Response |
Incident Handling |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Implements an incident handling capability for security incidents that includes preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication, and recovery;
b. Coordinates incident handling activities with contingency planning activities; and
c. Incorporates lessons learned from ongoing incident handling activities into incident response procedures, training, and testing/exercises, and implements the resulting changes accordingly.
Supplemental Guidance: Organizations recognize that incident response capability is dependent on the capabilities of organizational information systems and the mission/business processes being supported by those systems. Therefore, organizations consider incident response as part of the definition, design, and development of mission/business processes and information systems. Incident-related information can be obtained from a variety of sources including, for example, audit monitoring, network monitoring, physical access monitoring, user/administrator reports, and reported supply chain events. Effective incident handling capability includes coordination among many organizational entities including, for example, mission/business owners, information system owners, authorizing officials, human resources offices, physical and personnel security offices, legal departments, operations personnel, procurement offices, and the risk executive (function). Related controls: AU-6, CM-6, CP-2, CP-4, IR-2, IR-3, IR-8, PE-6, SC-5, SC-7, SI-3, SI-4, SI-7.
References: Executive Order 13587; NIST Special Publication 800-61. |
link |
25 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
IR-5 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_IR-5 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 IR-5 |
Incident Response |
Incident Monitoring |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization tracks and documents information system security incidents.
Supplemental Guidance: Documenting information system security incidents includes, for example, maintaining records about each incident, the status of the incident, and other pertinent information necessary for forensics, evaluating incident details, trends, and handling. Incident information can be obtained from a variety of sources including, for example, incident reports, incident response teams, audit monitoring, network monitoring, physical access monitoring, and user/administrator reports. Related controls: AU-6, IR-8, PE-6, SC-5, SC-7, SI-3, SI-4, SI-7.
References: NIST Special Publication 800-61. |
link |
14 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
RA-5 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_RA-5 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 RA-5 |
Risk Assessment |
Vulnerability Scanning |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Scans for vulnerabilities in the information system and hosted applications [Assignment: organization-defined frequency and/or randomly in accordance with organization-defined process] and when new vulnerabilities potentially affecting the system/applications are identified and reported;
b. Employs vulnerability scanning tools and techniques that facilitate interoperability among tools and automate parts of the vulnerability management process by using standards for:
1. Enumerating platforms, software flaws, and improper configurations;
2. Formatting checklists and test procedures; and
3. Measuring vulnerability impact;
c. Analyzes vulnerability scan reports and results from security control assessments;
d. Remediates legitimate vulnerabilities [Assignment: organization-defined response times], in accordance with an organizational assessment of risk; and
e. Shares information obtained from the vulnerability scanning process and security control assessments with [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles] to help eliminate similar vulnerabilities in other information systems (i.e., systemic weaknesses or deficiencies).
Supplemental Guidance: Security categorization of information systems guides the frequency and comprehensiveness of vulnerability scans. Organizations determine the required vulnerability scanning for all information system components, ensuring that potential sources of vulnerabilities such as networked printers, scanners, and copiers are not overlooked. Vulnerability analyses for custom software applications may require additional approaches such as static analysis, dynamic analysis, binary analysis, or a hybrid of the three approaches. Organizations can employ these analysis approaches in a variety of tools (e.g., web-based application scanners, static analysis tools, binary analyzers) and in source code reviews. Vulnerability scanning includes, for example: (i) scanning for patch levels; (ii) scanning for functions, ports, protocols, and services that should not be accessible to users or devices; and (iii) scanning for improperly configured or incorrectly operating information flow control mechanisms. Organizations consider using tools that express vulnerabilities in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) naming convention and that use the Open Vulnerability Assessment Language (OVAL) to determine/test for the presence of vulnerabilities. Suggested sources for vulnerability information include the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) listing and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). In addition, security control assessments such as red team exercises provide other sources of potential vulnerabilities for which to scan. Organizations also consider using tools that express vulnerability impact by the
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS). Related controls: CA-2, CA-7, CM-4, CM-6, RA-2, RA-3, SA-11, SI-2.
References: NIST Special Publications 800-40, 800-70, 800-115; Web: http://cwe.mitre.org, http://nvd.nist.gov. |
link |
23 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
SI-2 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_SI-2 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 SI-2 |
System And Information Integrity |
Flaw Remediation |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Identifies, reports, and corrects information system flaws;
b. Tests software and firmware updates related to flaw remediation for effectiveness and potential side effects before installation;
c. Installs security-relevant software and firmware updates within [Assignment: organization- defined time period] of the release of the updates; and
d. Incorporates flaw remediation into the organizational configuration management process.
Supplemental Guidance: Organizations identify information systems affected by announced software flaws including potential vulnerabilities resulting from those flaws, and report this information to designated organizational personnel with information security responsibilities. Security-relevant software updates include, for example, patches, service packs, hot fixes, and anti-virus signatures. Organizations also address flaws discovered during security assessments, continuous monitoring, incident response activities, and system error handling. Organizations take advantage of available resources such as the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) or Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) databases in remediating flaws discovered in organizational information systems. By incorporating flaw remediation into ongoing configuration management processes, required/anticipated remediation actions can be tracked and verified. Flaw remediation actions that can be tracked and verified include, for example, determining whether organizations follow US-CERT guidance and Information Assurance Vulnerability Alerts. Organization-defined time periods for updating security-relevant software and firmware may vary based on a variety of factors including, for example, the security category of the information system or 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. Organizations determine the degree and type of testing needed for the specific type of flaw remediation activity under consideration and also the types of changes that are to be configuration-managed. In some situations, organizations may determine that the testing of software and/or firmware updates is not necessary or practical,
for example, when implementing simple anti-virus signature updates. Organizations may also consider in testing decisions, whether security-relevant software or firmware updates are obtained from authorized sources with appropriate digital signatures. Related controls: CA-2, CA-7, CM-3, CM-5, CM-8, MA-2, IR-4, RA-5, SA-10, SA-11, SI-11. |
link |
20 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
SI-4 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_SI-4 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 SI-4 |
System And Information Integrity |
Information System Monitoring |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Monitors the information system to detect:
1. Attacks and indicators of potential attacks in accordance with [Assignment: organization- defined monitoring objectives]; and
2. Unauthorized local, network, and remote connections;
b. Identifies unauthorized use of the information system through [Assignment: organization- defined techniques and methods];
c. Deploys monitoring devices: (i) strategically within the information system to collect organization-determined essential information; and (ii) at ad hoc locations within the system to track specific types of transactions of interest to the organization;
d. Protects information obtained from intrusion-monitoring tools from unauthorized access, modification, and deletion;
e. Heightens the level of information system monitoring activity whenever there is an indication of increased risk to organizational operations and assets, individuals, other organizations, or the Nation based on law enforcement information, intelligence information, or other credible sources of information;
f. Obtains legal opinion with regard to information system monitoring activities in accordance with applicable federal laws, Executive Orders, directives, policies, or regulations; and
g. Provides [Assignment: or ganization-defined information system monitoring information] to [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles] [Selection (one or more): as needed; [Assignment: organization-defined frequency]].
Supplemental Guidance: Information system monitoring includes external and internal monitoring. External monitoring includes the observation of events occurring at the information system boundary (i.e., part of perimeter defense and boundary protection). Internal monitoring includes the observation of events occurring within the information system. Organizations can monitor information systems, for example, by observing audit activities in real time or by observing other system aspects such as access patterns, characteristics of access, and other actions. The monitoring objectives may guide determination of the events. Information system monitoring capability is achieved through a variety of tools and techniques (e.g., intrusion detection systems, intrusion prevention systems, malicious code protection software, scanning tools, audit record monitoring software, network monitoring software). Strategic locations for monitoring devices include, for example, selected perimeter locations and near server farms supporting critical applications, with such devices typically being employed at the managed interfaces associated with controls SC-7 and AC-17. Einstein network monitoring devices from the Department of Homeland Security can also be included as monitoring devices. The granularity of monitoring information collected is based on organizational monitoring objectives and the capability of information systems to support such objectives. Specific types of transactions of interest include, for example, Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) traffic that bypasses HTTP proxies. Information system monitoring is an integral part of organizational continuous monitoring and incident response programs. Output from system monitoring serves as input to continuous monitoring and incident response programs. A network connection is any connection with a device that communicates through a network (e.g., local area network, Internet). A remote connection is any connection with a device communicating through an external network (e.g., the Internet). Local, network, and remote connections can be either wired or wireless. Related controls: AC-3, AC-4, AC-8, AC-17, AU-2, AU-6, AU-7, AU-9, AU-12, CA-7, IR-4, PE-3, RA-5, SC-7, SC-26, SC-35, SI-3, SI-7.
References: NIST Special Publications 800-61, 800-83, 800-92, 800-94, 800-137. |
link |
26 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
AC-2(12) |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_AC-2(12) |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 AC-2 (12) |
Access Control |
Account Monitoring for Atypical Usage |
Shared |
n/a |
(a) Monitor system accounts for [Assignment: organization-defined atypical usage]; and
(b) Report atypical usage of system accounts to [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles]. |
link |
14 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
AU-12 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_AU-12 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 AU-12 |
Audit and Accountability |
Audit Record Generation |
Shared |
n/a |
a. Provide audit record generation capability for the event types the system is capable of auditing as defined in [AU-2a](#au-2_smt.a) on [Assignment: organization-defined system components];
b. Allow [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles] to select the event types that are to be logged by specific components of the system; and
c. Generate audit records for the event types defined in [AU-2c](#au-2_smt.c) that include the audit record content defined in [AU-3](#au-3). |
link |
38 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
AU-12(1) |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_AU-12(1) |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 AU-12 (1) |
Audit and Accountability |
System-wide and Time-correlated Audit Trail |
Shared |
n/a |
Compile audit records from [Assignment: organization-defined system components] into a system-wide (logical or physical) audit trail that is time-correlated to within [Assignment: organization-defined level of tolerance for the relationship between time stamps of individual records in the audit trail]. |
link |
35 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
AU-6 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_AU-6 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 AU-6 |
Audit and Accountability |
Audit Record Review, Analysis, and Reporting |
Shared |
n/a |
a. Review and analyze system audit records [Assignment: organization-defined frequency] for indications of [Assignment: organization-defined inappropriate or unusual activity] and the potential impact of the inappropriate or unusual activity;
b. Report findings to [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles]; and
c. Adjust the level of audit record review, analysis, and reporting within the system when there is a change in risk based on law enforcement information, intelligence information, or other credible sources of information. |
link |
26 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
AU-6(4) |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_AU-6(4) |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 AU-6 (4) |
Audit and Accountability |
Central Review and Analysis |
Shared |
n/a |
Provide and implement the capability to centrally review and analyze audit records from multiple components within the system. |
link |
34 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
AU-6(5) |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_AU-6(5) |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 AU-6 (5) |
Audit and Accountability |
Integrated Analysis of Audit Records |
Shared |
n/a |
Integrate analysis of audit records with analysis of [Selection (OneOrMore): vulnerability scanning information;performance data;system monitoring information; [Assignment: organization-defined data/information collected from other sources] ] to further enhance the ability to identify inappropriate or unusual activity. |
link |
35 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
IR-4 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_IR-4 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 IR-4 |
Incident Response |
Incident Handling |
Shared |
n/a |
a. Implement an incident handling capability for incidents that is consistent with the incident response plan and includes preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication, and recovery;
b. Coordinate incident handling activities with contingency planning activities;
c. Incorporate lessons learned from ongoing incident handling activities into incident response procedures, training, and testing, and implement the resulting changes accordingly; and
d. Ensure the rigor, intensity, scope, and results of incident handling activities are comparable and predictable across the organization. |
link |
25 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
IR-5 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_IR-5 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 IR-5 |
Incident Response |
Incident Monitoring |
Shared |
n/a |
Track and document incidents. |
link |
14 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
RA-5 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_RA-5 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 RA-5 |
Risk Assessment |
Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning |
Shared |
n/a |
a. Monitor and scan for vulnerabilities in the system and hosted applications [Assignment: organization-defined frequency and/or randomly in accordance with organization-defined process] and when new vulnerabilities potentially affecting the system are identified and reported;
b. Employ vulnerability monitoring tools and techniques that facilitate interoperability among tools and automate parts of the vulnerability management process by using standards for:
1. Enumerating platforms, software flaws, and improper configurations;
2. Formatting checklists and test procedures; and
3. Measuring vulnerability impact;
c. Analyze vulnerability scan reports and results from vulnerability monitoring;
d. Remediate legitimate vulnerabilities [Assignment: organization-defined response times] in accordance with an organizational assessment of risk;
e. Share information obtained from the vulnerability monitoring process and control assessments with [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles] to help eliminate similar vulnerabilities in other systems; and
f. Employ vulnerability monitoring tools that include the capability to readily update the vulnerabilities to be scanned. |
link |
23 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
SI-2 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_SI-2 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-2 |
System and Information Integrity |
Flaw Remediation |
Shared |
n/a |
a. Identify, report, and correct system flaws;
b. Test software and firmware updates related to flaw remediation for effectiveness and potential side effects before installation;
c. Install security-relevant software and firmware updates within [Assignment: organization-defined time period] of the release of the updates; and
d. Incorporate flaw remediation into the organizational configuration management process. |
link |
20 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
SI-4 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_SI-4 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-4 |
System and Information Integrity |
System Monitoring |
Shared |
n/a |
a. Monitor the system to detect:
1. Attacks and indicators of potential attacks in accordance with the following monitoring objectives: [Assignment: organization-defined monitoring objectives]; and
2. Unauthorized local, network, and remote connections;
b. Identify unauthorized use of the system through the following techniques and methods: [Assignment: organization-defined techniques and methods];
c. Invoke internal monitoring capabilities or deploy monitoring devices:
1. Strategically within the system to collect organization-determined essential information; and
2. At ad hoc locations within the system to track specific types of transactions of interest to the organization;
d. Analyze detected events and anomalies;
e. Adjust the level of system monitoring activity when there is a change in risk to organizational operations and assets, individuals, other organizations, or the Nation;
f. Obtain legal opinion regarding system monitoring activities; and
g. Provide [Assignment: organization-defined system monitoring information] to [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles] [Selection (OneOrMore): as needed; [Assignment: organization-defined frequency] ] . |
link |
26 |
| NZ_ISM_v3.5 |
ISI-2 |
NZ_ISM_v3.5_ISI-2 |
NZISM Security Benchmark ISI-2 |
Information Security Incidents |
7.1.7 Preventing and detecting information security incidents |
Customer |
n/a |
Processes and procedures for the detection of information security incidents will assist in mitigating attacks using the most common vectors in systems exploits. Automated tools are only as good as their implementation and the level of analysis they perform. If tools are not configured to assess all areas of potential security risk then some vulnerabilities or attacks will not be detected. In addition, if tools are not regularly updated, including updates for new vulnerabilities and attack methods, their effectiveness will be reduced. |
link |
12 |
| 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 |
13.2 |
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 |
13.4 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_13.4 |
|
Advanced Real-Timethreat Defenceand Management |
Advanced Real-Timethreat Defenceand Management-13.4 |
|
n/a |
Consider implementingsecure web gateways with capability to deep scan network packets including secure (HTTPS, etc.) traffic passing through the web/internet gateway |
|
44 |
| RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016 |
4.9 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_4.9 |
|
Network Management And Security |
Security Operation Centre-4.9 |
|
n/a |
Security Operation Centre to monitor the logs of various network activities and should have the capability to escalate any abnormal / undesirable activities. |
|
16 |
| RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016 |
7.6 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_7.6 |
|
Patch/Vulnerability & Change Management |
Patch/Vulnerability & Change Management-7.6 |
|
n/a |
As a threat mitigation strategy, identify the root cause of incident and apply
necessary patches to plug the vulnerabilities. |
|
21 |
| RBI_ITF_NBFC_v2017 |
3.1.f |
RBI_ITF_NBFC_v2017_3.1.f |
RBI IT Framework 3.1.f |
Information and Cyber Security |
Maker-checker-3.1 |
|
n/a |
The IS Policy must provide for a IS framework with the following basic tenets:
Maker-checker is one of the important principles of authorization in the information systems of financial entities. For each transaction, there must be at least two individuals necessary for its completion as this will reduce the risk of error and will ensure reliability of information. |
link |
24 |
| RBI_ITF_NBFC_v2017 |
3.1.g |
RBI_ITF_NBFC_v2017_3.1.g |
RBI IT Framework 3.1.g |
Information and Cyber Security |
Trails-3.1 |
|
n/a |
The IS Policy must provide for a IS framework with the following basic tenets:
Trails- NBFCs shall ensure that audit trails exist for IT assets satisfying its business requirements including regulatory and legal requirements, facilitating audit, serving as forensic evidence when required and assisting in dispute resolution. If an employee, for instance, attempts to access an unauthorized section, this improper activity should be recorded in the audit trail. |
link |
40 |
| RMiT_v1.0 |
11.5 |
RMiT_v1.0_11.5 |
RMiT 11.5 |
Cybersecurity Operations |
Cybersecurity Operations - 11.5 |
Shared |
n/a |
A financial institution must establish clear responsibilities for cybersecurity operations which shall include implementing appropriate mitigating measures in the financial institution's conduct of business that correspond to the following phases of the cyber-attack lifecycle:
(a) reconnaisance;
(b) weaponisation;
(c) delivery;
(d) exploitation;
(e) installation;
(f) command and control; and
(g) exfiltration. (harvest data) |
link |
6 |
| RMiT_v1.0 |
Appendix_5.7 |
RMiT_v1.0_Appendix_5.7 |
RMiT Appendix 5.7 |
Control Measures on Cybersecurity |
Control Measures on Cybersecurity - Appendix 5.7 |
Customer |
n/a |
Ensure overall network security controls are implemented including the following:
(a) dedicated firewalls at all segments. All external-facing firewalls must be deployed on High Availability (HA) configuration and “fail-close” mode activated. Deploy different brand name/model for two firewalls located in sequence within the same network path;
(b) IPS at all critical network segments with the capability to inspect and monitor encrypted network traffic;
(c) web and email filtering systems such as web-proxy, spam filter and anti-spoofing controls;
(d) endpoint protection solution to detect and remove security threats including viruses and malicious software;
(e) solution to mitigate advanced persistent threats including zero-day and signatureless malware; and
(f) capture the full network packets to rebuild relevant network sessions to aid forensics in the event of incidents. |
link |
27 |
| SOC_2 |
CC7.2 |
SOC_2_CC7.2 |
SOC 2 Type 2 CC7.2 |
System Operations |
Monitor system components for anomalous behavior |
Shared |
The customer is responsible for implementing this recommendation. |
• Implements Detection Policies, Procedures, and Tools — Detection policies and
procedures are defined and implemented and detection tools are implemented on infrastructure and software to identify anomalies in the operation or unusual activity
on systems. Procedures may include (1) a defined governance process for security
event detection and management that includes provision of resources; (2) use of intelligence sources to identify newly discovered threats and vulnerabilities; and (3)
logging of unusual system activities.
• Designs Detection Measures — Detection measures are designed to identify anomalies that could result from actual or attempted (1) compromise of physical barriers;
(2) unauthorized actions of authorized personnel; (3) use of compromised identification and authentication credentials; (4) unauthorized access from outside the system boundaries; (5) compromise of authorized external parties; and (6) implementation or connection of unauthorized hardware and software.
• Implements Filters to Analyze Anomalies — Management has implemented procedures to filter, summarize, and analyze anomalies to identify security events.
• Monitors Detection Tools for Effective Operation — Management has implemented
processes to monitor the effectiveness of detection tools |
|
20 |
| SWIFT_CSCF_v2021 |
2.7 |
SWIFT_CSCF_v2021_2.7 |
SWIFT CSCF v2021 2.7 |
Reduce Attack Surface and Vulnerabilities |
Vulnerability Scanning |
|
n/a |
Identify known vulnerabilities within the local SWIFT environment by implementing a regular vulnerability scanning process and act upon results. |
link |
12 |
| SWIFT_CSCF_v2021 |
6.4 |
SWIFT_CSCF_v2021_6.4 |
SWIFT CSCF v2021 6.4 |
Detect Anomalous Activity to Systems or Transaction Records |
Logging and Monitoring |
|
n/a |
Record security events and detect anomalous actions and operations within the local SWIFT environment. |
link |
34 |
| SWIFT_CSCF_v2021 |
6.5A |
SWIFT_CSCF_v2021_6.5A |
SWIFT CSCF v2021 6.5A |
Detect Anomalous Activity to Systems or Transaction Records |
Intrusion Detection |
|
n/a |
Detect and prevent anomalous network activity into and within the local or remote SWIFT environment. |
link |
16 |
|