| Control Domain |
Control |
Name |
MetadataId |
Category |
Title |
Owner |
Requirements |
Description |
Info |
Policy# |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v1.0 |
1.1 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v1.0_1.1 |
Azure Security Benchmark 1.1 |
Network Security |
Protect resources using Network Security Groups or Azure Firewall on your Virtual Network |
Customer |
Ensure that all Virtual Network subnet deployments have a Network Security Group applied with network access controls specific to your application's trusted ports and sources. Use Azure Services with Private Link enabled, deploy the service inside your Vnet, or connect privately using Private Endpoints. For service specific requirements, please refer to the security recommendation for that specific service.
Alternatively, if you have a specific use case, requirements can be met by implementing Azure Firewall.
General Information on Private Link:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/private-link/private-link-overview
How to create a Virtual Network:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/virtual-network/quick-create-portal
How to create an NSG with a security configuration:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/virtual-network/tutorial-filter-network-traffic
How to deploy and configure Azure Firewall:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/firewall/tutorial-firewall-deploy-portal |
n/a |
link |
21 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0 |
NS-1 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0_NS-1 |
Azure Security Benchmark NS-1 |
Network Security |
Implement security for internal traffic |
Customer |
Ensure that all Azure virtual networks follow an enterprise segmentation principle that aligns to the business risks. Any system that could incur higher risk for the organization should be isolated within its own virtual network and sufficiently secured with either a network security group (NSG) and/or Azure Firewall.
Based on your applications and enterprise segmentation strategy, restrict or allow traffic between internal resources based on network security group rules. For specific well-defined applications (such as a 3-tier app), this can be a highly secure "deny by default, permit by exception" approach. This might not scale well if you have many applications and endpoints interacting with each other. You can also use Azure Firewall in circumstances where central management is required over a large number of enterprise segments or spokes (in a hub/spoke topology).
Use Azure Security Center Adaptive Network Hardening to recommend network security group configurations that limit ports and source IPs based with the reference to external network traffic rules.
Use Azure Sentinel to discover the use of legacy insecure protocols such as SSL/TLSv1, SMBv1, LM/NTLMv1, wDigest, Unsigned LDAP Binds, and weak ciphers in Kerberos.
How to create a network security group with security rules: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/virtual-network/tutorial-filter-network-traffic
How to deploy and configure Azure Firewall: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/firewall/tutorial-firewall-deploy-portal
Adaptive Network Hardening in Azure Security Center: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/security-center-adaptive-network-hardening
Azure Sentinel insecure protocols workbook:https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/sentinel/quickstart-get-visibility#use-built-in-workbooks |
n/a |
link |
20 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0 |
NS-4 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0_NS-4 |
Azure Security Benchmark NS-4 |
Network Security |
Protect applications and services from external network attacks |
Customer |
Protect Azure resources against attacks from external networks, including distributed denial of service (DDoS) Attacks, application specific attacks, and unsolicited and potentially malicious internet traffic. Azure includes native capabilities for this:
- Use Azure Firewall to protect applications and services against potentially malicious traffic from the internet and other external locations.
- Use Web Application Firewall (WAF) capabilities in Azure Application Gateway, Azure Front Door, and Azure Content Delivery Network (CDN) to protect your applications, services, and APIs against application layer attacks.
- Protect your assets against DDoS attacks by enabling DDoS standard protection on your Azure virtual networks.
- Use Azure Security Center to detect misconfiguration risks related to the above.
Azure Firewall Documentation: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/firewall/
How to deploy Azure WAF: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/web-application-firewall/overview
Manage Azure DDoS Protection Standard using the Azure portal: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/virtual-network/manage-ddos-protection |
n/a |
link |
15 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0 |
NS-3 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0_NS-3 |
Azure Security Benchmark NS-3 |
Network Security |
Deploy firewall at the edge of enterprise network |
Shared |
**Security Principle:**
Deploy a firewall to perform advanced filtering on network traffic to and from external networks. You can also use firewalls between internal segments to support a segmentation strategy. If required, use custom routes for your subnet to override the system route when you need to force the network traffic to go through a network appliance for security control purpose.
At a minimum, block known bad IP addresses and high-risk protocols, such as remote management (for example, RDP and SSH) and intranet protocols (for example, SMB and Kerberos).
**Azure Guidance:**
Use Azure Firewall to provide fully stateful application layer traffic restriction (such as URL filtering) and/or central management over a large number of enterprise segments or spokes (in a hub/spoke topology).
If you have a complex network topology, such as a hub/spoke setup, you may need to create user-defined routes (UDR) to ensure the traffic goes through the desired route. For example, you have option to use an UDR to redirect egress internet traffic through a specific Azure Firewall or a network virtual appliance.
**Implementation and additional context:**
How to deploy Azure Firewall:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/firewall/tutorial-firewall-deploy-portal
Virtual network traffic routing:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/virtual-network/virtual-networks-udr-overview |
n/a |
link |
4 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
AC.L2-3.1.3 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_AC.L2-3.1.3 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
54 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
SC.L1-3.13.1 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_SC.L1-3.13.1 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
58 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
SC.L1-3.13.5 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_SC.L1-3.13.5 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
53 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
SC.L2-3.13.2 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_SC.L2-3.13.2 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
53 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
AC-4 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_AC-4 |
FedRAMP High AC-4 |
Access Control |
Information Flow Enforcement |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system enforces approved authorizations for controlling the flow of information within the system and between interconnected systems based on [Assignment: organization-defined information flow control policies].
Supplemental Guidance: Information flow control regulates where information is allowed to travel within an information system and between information systems (as opposed to who is allowed to access the information) and without explicit regard to subsequent accesses to that information. Flow control restrictions include, for example, keeping export-controlled information from being transmitted in the clear to the Internet, blocking outside traffic that claims to be from within the organization, restricting web requests to the Internet that are not from the internal web proxy server, and limiting information transfers between organizations based on data structures and content. Transferring information between information systems representing different security domains with different security policies introduces risk that such transfers violate one or more domain security policies. In such situations, information owners/stewards provide guidance at designated policy enforcement points between interconnected systems. Organizations consider mandating specific architectural solutions when required to enforce specific security policies. Enforcement includes, for example: (i) prohibiting information transfers between interconnected systems (i.e., allowing access only); (ii) employing hardware mechanisms to enforce one-way information flows; and (iii) implementing trustworthy regarding mechanisms to reassign security attributes and security labels.
Organizations commonly employ information flow control policies and enforcement mechanisms to control the flow of information between designated sources and destinations (e.g., networks, individuals, and devices) within information systems and between interconnected systems. Flow control is based on the characteristics of the information and/or the information path. Enforcement occurs, for example, in boundary protection devices (e.g., gateways, routers, guards, encrypted tunnels, firewalls) that employ rule sets or establish configuration settings that restrict information system services, provide a packet-filtering capability based on header information, or message- filtering capability based on message content (e.g., implementing key word searches or using document characteristics). Organizations also consider the trustworthiness of filtering/inspection mechanisms (i.e., hardware, firmware, and software components) that are critical to information flow enforcement. Control enhancements 3 through 22 primarily address cross-domain solution needs which focus on more advanced filtering techniques, in-depth analysis, and stronger flow enforcement mechanisms implemented in cross-domain products, for example, high-assurance guards. Such capabilities are generally not available in commercial off-the-shelf information technology products. Related controls: AC-3, AC-17, AC-19, AC-21, CM-6, CM-7, SA-8, SC-2, SC-5, SC-7, SC-18.
References: None. |
link |
54 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
SC-5 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_SC-5 |
FedRAMP High SC-5 |
System And Communications Protection |
Denial Of Service Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system protects against or limits the effects of the following types of denial of service attacks: [Assignment: organization-defined types of denial of service attacks or reference to source for such information] by employing [Assignment: organization-defined security safeguards].
Supplemental Guidance: A variety of technologies exist to limit, or in some cases, eliminate the effects of denial of service attacks. For example, boundary protection devices can filter certain types of packets to protect information system components on internal organizational networks from being directly affected by denial of service attacks. Employing increased capacity and bandwidth combined with service redundancy may also reduce the susceptibility to denial of service attacks. Related controls: SC-6, SC-7.
References: None. |
link |
5 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
SC-7 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_SC-7 |
FedRAMP High SC-7 |
System And Communications Protection |
Boundary Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system:
a. Monitors and controls communications at the external boundary of the system and at key internal boundaries within the system;
b. Implements subnetworks for publicly accessible system components that are [Selection: physically; logically] separated from internal organizational networks; and
c. Connects to external networks or information systems only through managed interfaces consisting of boundary protection devices arranged in accordance with an organizational security architecture.
Supplemental Guidance: Managed interfaces include, for example, gateways, routers, firewalls, guards, network-based malicious code analysis and virtualization systems, or encrypted tunnels implemented within a security architecture (e.g., routers protecting firewalls or application gateways residing on protected subnetworks). Subnetworks that are physically or logically separated from internal networks are referred to as demilitarized zones or DMZs. Restricting or prohibiting interfaces within organizational information systems includes, for example, restricting external web traffic to designated web servers within managed interfaces and prohibiting external traffic that appears to be spoofing internal addresses. Organizations consider the shared nature of commercial telecommunications services in the implementation of security controls associated with the use of such services. Commercial telecommunications services are commonly based on network components and consolidated management systems shared by all attached commercial customers, and may also include third party-provided access lines and other service elements. Such transmission services may represent sources of increased risk despite contract security provisions. Related controls: AC-4, AC-17, CA-3, CM-7, CP-8, IR-4, RA-3, SC-5, SC-13.
References: FIPS Publication 199; NIST Special Publications 800-41, 800-77. |
link |
54 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
SC-7(3) |
FedRAMP_High_R4_SC-7(3) |
FedRAMP High SC-7 (3) |
System And Communications Protection |
Access Points |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization limits the number of external network connections to the information system.
Supplemental Guidance: Limiting the number of external network connections facilitates more comprehensive monitoring of inbound and outbound communications traffic. The Trusted Internet Connection (TIC) initiative is an example of limiting the number of external network connections. |
link |
53 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
AC-4 |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_AC-4 |
FedRAMP Moderate AC-4 |
Access Control |
Information Flow Enforcement |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system enforces approved authorizations for controlling the flow of information within the system and between interconnected systems based on [Assignment: organization-defined information flow control policies].
Supplemental Guidance: Information flow control regulates where information is allowed to travel within an information system and between information systems (as opposed to who is allowed to access the information) and without explicit regard to subsequent accesses to that information. Flow control restrictions include, for example, keeping export-controlled information from being transmitted in the clear to the Internet, blocking outside traffic that claims to be from within the organization, restricting web requests to the Internet that are not from the internal web proxy server, and limiting information transfers between organizations based on data structures and content. Transferring information between information systems representing different security domains with different security policies introduces risk that such transfers violate one or more domain security policies. In such situations, information owners/stewards provide guidance at designated policy enforcement points between interconnected systems. Organizations consider mandating specific architectural solutions when required to enforce specific security policies. Enforcement includes, for example: (i) prohibiting information transfers between interconnected systems (i.e., allowing access only); (ii) employing hardware mechanisms to enforce one-way information flows; and (iii) implementing trustworthy regarding mechanisms to reassign security attributes and security labels.
Organizations commonly employ information flow control policies and enforcement mechanisms to control the flow of information between designated sources and destinations (e.g., networks, individuals, and devices) within information systems and between interconnected systems. Flow control is based on the characteristics of the information and/or the information path. Enforcement occurs, for example, in boundary protection devices (e.g., gateways, routers, guards, encrypted tunnels, firewalls) that employ rule sets or establish configuration settings that restrict information system services, provide a packet-filtering capability based on header information, or message- filtering capability based on message content (e.g., implementing key word searches or using document characteristics). Organizations also consider the trustworthiness of filtering/inspection mechanisms (i.e., hardware, firmware, and software components) that are critical to information flow enforcement. Control enhancements 3 through 22 primarily address cross-domain solution needs which focus on more advanced filtering techniques, in-depth analysis, and stronger flow enforcement mechanisms implemented in cross-domain products, for example, high-assurance guards. Such capabilities are generally not available in commercial off-the-shelf information technology products. Related controls: AC-3, AC-17, AC-19, AC-21, CM-6, CM-7, SA-8, SC-2, SC-5, SC-7, SC-18.
References: None. |
link |
54 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
SC-5 |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_SC-5 |
FedRAMP Moderate SC-5 |
System And Communications Protection |
Denial Of Service Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system protects against or limits the effects of the following types of denial of service attacks: [Assignment: organization-defined types of denial of service attacks or reference to source for such information] by employing [Assignment: organization-defined security safeguards].
Supplemental Guidance: A variety of technologies exist to limit, or in some cases, eliminate the effects of denial of service attacks. For example, boundary protection devices can filter certain types of packets to protect information system components on internal organizational networks from being directly affected by denial of service attacks. Employing increased capacity and bandwidth combined with service redundancy may also reduce the susceptibility to denial of service attacks. Related controls: SC-6, SC-7.
References: None. |
link |
5 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
SC-7 |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_SC-7 |
FedRAMP Moderate SC-7 |
System And Communications Protection |
Boundary Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system:
a. Monitors and controls communications at the external boundary of the system and at key internal boundaries within the system;
b. Implements subnetworks for publicly accessible system components that are [Selection: physically; logically] separated from internal organizational networks; and
c. Connects to external networks or information systems only through managed interfaces consisting of boundary protection devices arranged in accordance with an organizational security architecture.
Supplemental Guidance: Managed interfaces include, for example, gateways, routers, firewalls, guards, network-based malicious code analysis and virtualization systems, or encrypted tunnels implemented within a security architecture (e.g., routers protecting firewalls or application gateways residing on protected subnetworks). Subnetworks that are physically or logically separated from internal networks are referred to as demilitarized zones or DMZs. Restricting or prohibiting interfaces within organizational information systems includes, for example, restricting external web traffic to designated web servers within managed interfaces and prohibiting external traffic that appears to be spoofing internal addresses. Organizations consider the shared nature of commercial telecommunications services in the implementation of security controls associated with the use of such services. Commercial telecommunications services are commonly based on network components and consolidated management systems shared by all attached commercial customers, and may also include third party-provided access lines and other service elements. Such transmission services may represent sources of increased risk despite contract security provisions. Related controls: AC-4, AC-17, CA-3, CM-7, CP-8, IR-4, RA-3, SC-5, SC-13.
References: FIPS Publication 199; NIST Special Publications 800-41, 800-77. |
link |
54 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
SC-7(3) |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_SC-7(3) |
FedRAMP Moderate SC-7 (3) |
System And Communications Protection |
Access Points |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization limits the number of external network connections to the information system.
Supplemental Guidance: Limiting the number of external network connections facilitates more comprehensive monitoring of inbound and outbound communications traffic. The Trusted Internet Connection (TIC) initiative is an example of limiting the number of external network connections. |
link |
53 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.1.3 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.1.3 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.1.3 |
Access Control |
Control the flow of CUI in accordance with approved authorizations. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Information flow control regulates where information can travel within a system and between systems (versus who can access the information) and without explicit regard to subsequent accesses to that information. Flow control restrictions include the following: keeping export-controlled information from being transmitted in the clear to the Internet; blocking outside traffic that claims to be from within the organization; restricting requests to the Internet that are not from the internal web proxy server; and limiting information transfers between organizations based on data structures and content. Organizations commonly use information flow control policies and enforcement mechanisms to control the flow of information between designated sources and destinations (e.g., networks, individuals, and devices) within systems and between interconnected systems. Flow control is based on characteristics of the information or the information path. Enforcement occurs in boundary protection devices (e.g., gateways, routers, guards, encrypted tunnels, firewalls) that employ rule sets or establish configuration settings that restrict system services, provide a packet-filtering capability based on header information, or message-filtering capability based on message content (e.g., implementing key word searches or using document characteristics). Organizations also consider the trustworthiness of filtering and inspection mechanisms (i.e., hardware, firmware, and software components) that are critical to information flow enforcement. Transferring information between systems representing different security domains with different security policies introduces risk that such transfers violate one or more domain security policies. In such situations, information owners or stewards provide guidance at designated policy enforcement points between interconnected systems. Organizations consider mandating specific architectural solutions when required to enforce specific security policies. Enforcement includes: prohibiting information transfers between interconnected systems (i.e., allowing access only); employing hardware mechanisms to enforce one-way information flows; and implementing trustworthy regrading mechanisms to reassign security attributes and security labels. |
link |
58 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.13.1 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.13.1 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.13.1 |
System and Communications Protection |
Monitor, control, and protect communications (i.e., information transmitted or received by organizational systems) at the external boundaries and key internal boundaries of organizational systems. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Communications can be monitored, controlled, and protected at boundary components and by restricting or prohibiting interfaces in organizational systems. Boundary components include gateways, routers, firewalls, guards, network-based malicious code analysis and virtualization systems, or encrypted tunnels implemented within a system security architecture (e.g., routers protecting firewalls or application gateways residing on protected subnetworks). Restricting or prohibiting interfaces in organizational systems includes restricting external web communications traffic to designated web servers within managed interfaces and prohibiting external traffic that appears to be spoofing internal addresses. Organizations consider the shared nature of commercial telecommunications services in the implementation of security requirements associated with the use of such services. Commercial telecommunications services are commonly based on network components and consolidated management systems shared by all attached commercial customers and may also include third party-provided access lines and other service elements. Such transmission services may represent sources of increased risk despite contract security provisions. [SP 800-41] provides guidance on firewalls and firewall policy. [SP 800-125B] provides guidance on security for virtualization technologies.
[28] There is no prescribed format or specified level of detail for system security plans. However, organizations ensure that the required information in 3.12.4 is conveyed in those plans. |
link |
53 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.13.2 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.13.2 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.13.2 |
System and Communications Protection |
Employ architectural designs, software development techniques, and systems engineering principles that promote effective information security within organizational systems. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Organizations apply systems security engineering principles to new development systems or systems undergoing major upgrades. For legacy systems, organizations apply systems security engineering principles to system upgrades and modifications to the extent feasible, given the current state of hardware, software, and firmware components within those systems. The application of systems security engineering concepts and principles helps to develop trustworthy, secure, and resilient systems and system components and reduce the susceptibility of organizations to disruptions, hazards, and threats. Examples of these concepts and principles include developing layered protections; establishing security policies, architecture, and controls as the foundation for design; incorporating security requirements into the system development life cycle; delineating physical and logical security boundaries; ensuring that developers are trained on how to build secure software; and performing threat modeling to identify use cases, threat agents, attack vectors and patterns, design patterns, and compensating controls needed to mitigate risk. Organizations that apply security engineering concepts and principles can facilitate the development of trustworthy, secure systems, system components, and system services; reduce risk to acceptable levels; and make informed risk-management decisions. [SP 800-160-1] provides guidance on systems security engineering. |
link |
53 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.13.5 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.13.5 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.13.5 |
System and Communications Protection |
Implement subnetworks for publicly accessible system components that are physically or logically separated from internal networks. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Subnetworks that are physically or logically separated from internal networks are referred to as demilitarized zones (DMZs). DMZs are typically implemented with boundary control devices and techniques that include routers, gateways, firewalls, virtualization, or cloud-based technologies. [SP 800-41] provides guidance on firewalls and firewall policy. [SP 800-125B] provides guidance on security for virtualization technologies |
link |
53 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
AC-4 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_AC-4 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 AC-4 |
Access Control |
Information Flow Enforcement |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system enforces approved authorizations for controlling the flow of information within the system and between interconnected systems based on [Assignment: organization-defined information flow control policies].
Supplemental Guidance: Information flow control regulates where information is allowed to travel within an information system and between information systems (as opposed to who is allowed to access the information) and without explicit regard to subsequent accesses to that information. Flow control restrictions include, for example, keeping export-controlled information from being transmitted in the clear to the Internet, blocking outside traffic that claims to be from within the organization, restricting web requests to the Internet that are not from the internal web proxy server, and limiting information transfers between organizations based on data structures and content. Transferring information between information systems representing different security domains with different security policies introduces risk that such transfers violate one or more domain security policies. In such situations, information owners/stewards provide guidance at designated policy enforcement points between interconnected systems. Organizations consider mandating specific architectural solutions when required to enforce specific security policies. Enforcement includes, for example: (i) prohibiting information transfers between interconnected systems (i.e., allowing access only); (ii) employing hardware mechanisms to enforce one-way information flows; and (iii) implementing trustworthy regarding mechanisms to reassign security attributes and security labels.
Organizations commonly employ information flow control policies and enforcement mechanisms to control the flow of information between designated sources and destinations (e.g., networks, individuals, and devices) within information systems and between interconnected systems. Flow control is based on the characteristics of the information and/or the information path. Enforcement occurs, for example, in boundary protection devices (e.g., gateways, routers, guards, encrypted tunnels, firewalls) that employ rule sets or establish configuration settings that restrict information system services, provide a packet-filtering capability based on header information, or message- filtering capability based on message content (e.g., implementing key word searches or using document characteristics). Organizations also consider the trustworthiness of filtering/inspection mechanisms (i.e., hardware, firmware, and software components) that are critical to information flow enforcement. Control enhancements 3 through 22 primarily address cross-domain solution needs which focus on more advanced filtering techniques, in-depth analysis, and stronger flow enforcement mechanisms implemented in cross-domain products, for example, high-assurance guards. Such capabilities are generally not available in commercial off-the-shelf information technology products. Related controls: AC-3, AC-17, AC-19, AC-21, CM-6, CM-7, SA-8, SC-2, SC-5, SC-7, SC-18.
References: None. |
link |
54 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
SC-5 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_SC-5 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 SC-5 |
System And Communications Protection |
Denial Of Service Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system protects against or limits the effects of the following types of denial of service attacks: [Assignment: organization-defined types of denial of service attacks or reference to source for such information] by employing [Assignment: organization-defined security safeguards].
Supplemental Guidance: A variety of technologies exist to limit, or in some cases, eliminate the effects of denial of service attacks. For example, boundary protection devices can filter certain types of packets to protect information system components on internal organizational networks from being directly affected by denial of service attacks. Employing increased capacity and bandwidth combined with service redundancy may also reduce the susceptibility to denial of service attacks. Related controls: SC-6, SC-7.
References: None. |
link |
5 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
SC-7 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_SC-7 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 SC-7 |
System And Communications Protection |
Boundary Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system:
a. Monitors and controls communications at the external boundary of the system and at key internal boundaries within the system;
b. Implements subnetworks for publicly accessible system components that are [Selection: physically; logically] separated from internal organizational networks; and
c. Connects to external networks or information systems only through managed interfaces consisting of boundary protection devices arranged in accordance with an organizational security architecture.
Supplemental Guidance: Managed interfaces include, for example, gateways, routers, firewalls, guards, network-based malicious code analysis and virtualization systems, or encrypted tunnels implemented within a security architecture (e.g., routers protecting firewalls or application gateways residing on protected subnetworks). Subnetworks that are physically or logically separated from internal networks are referred to as demilitarized zones or DMZs. Restricting or prohibiting interfaces within organizational information systems includes, for example, restricting external web traffic to designated web servers within managed interfaces and prohibiting external traffic that appears to be spoofing internal addresses. Organizations consider the shared nature of commercial telecommunications services in the implementation of security controls associated with the use of such services. Commercial telecommunications services are commonly based on network components and consolidated management systems shared by all attached commercial customers, and may also include third party-provided access lines and other service elements. Such transmission services may represent sources of increased risk despite contract security provisions. Related controls: AC-4, AC-17, CA-3, CM-7, CP-8, IR-4, RA-3, SC-5, SC-13.
References: FIPS Publication 199; NIST Special Publications 800-41, 800-77. |
link |
54 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
SC-7(3) |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_SC-7(3) |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 SC-7 (3) |
System And Communications Protection |
Access Points |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization limits the number of external network connections to the information system.
Supplemental Guidance: Limiting the number of external network connections facilitates more comprehensive monitoring of inbound and outbound communications traffic. The Trusted Internet Connection (TIC) initiative is an example of limiting the number of external network connections. |
link |
53 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
AC-4 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_AC-4 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 AC-4 |
Access Control |
Information Flow Enforcement |
Shared |
n/a |
Enforce approved authorizations for controlling the flow of information within the system and between connected systems based on [Assignment: organization-defined information flow control policies]. |
link |
54 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
SC-5 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_SC-5 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-5 |
System and Communications Protection |
Denial-of-service Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
a. [Selection: Protect against;Limit] the effects of the following types of denial-of-service events: [Assignment: organization-defined types of denial-of-service events]; and
b. Employ the following controls to achieve the denial-of-service objective: [Assignment: organization-defined controls by type of denial-of-service event]. |
link |
5 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
SC-7 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_SC-7 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7 |
System and Communications Protection |
Boundary Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
a. Monitor and control communications at the external managed interfaces to the system and at key internal managed interfaces within the system;
b. Implement subnetworks for publicly accessible system components that are [Selection: physically;logically] separated from internal organizational networks; and
c. Connect to external networks or systems only through managed interfaces consisting of boundary protection devices arranged in accordance with an organizational security and privacy architecture. |
link |
54 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
SC-7(3) |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_SC-7(3) |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7 (3) |
System and Communications Protection |
Access Points |
Shared |
n/a |
Limit the number of external network connections to the system. |
link |
53 |
| NZ_ISM_v3.5 |
CR-15 |
NZ_ISM_v3.5_CR-15 |
NZISM Security Benchmark CR-15 |
Cryptography |
17.9.25 Contents of KMPs |
Customer |
n/a |
When agencies implement the recommended contents for Key Management Plans (KMPs) they will have a good starting point for the protection of cryptographic systems and their material within their agencies. |
link |
4 |
| NZISM_Security_Benchmark_v1.1 |
CR-14 |
NZISM_Security_Benchmark_v1.1_CR-14 |
NZISM Security Benchmark CR-14 |
Cryptography |
17.9.25 Contents of KMPs |
Customer |
The list below describes the minimum contents which SHOULD be documented in the KMP:
Objectives of the KMP
System Description
Roles and Administrative responsibilities
Accounting
Classification
Information Security Incidents
Key Management
Maintenance
References |
When agencies implement the recommended contents for Key Management Plans (KMPs) they will have a good starting point for the protection of cryptographic systems and their material within their agencies. |
link |
2 |
| RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016 |
13.3 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_13.3 |
|
Advanced Real-Timethreat Defenceand Management |
Advanced Real-Timethreat Defenceand Management-13.3 |
|
n/a |
Consider implementing whitelisting of internet websites/systems. |
|
15 |
| 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 |
4.10 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_4.10 |
|
Network Management And Security |
Perimeter Protection And Detection-4.10 |
|
n/a |
Boundary defences should be multi-layered with properly configured firewalls, proxies, DMZ perimeter networks, and network--???based IPS and IDS. Mechanism to filter both inbound and outbound traffic to be put in place. |
|
12 |
| RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016 |
4.3 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_4.3 |
|
Network Management And Security |
Network Device Configuration Management-4.3 |
|
n/a |
Ensure that all the network devices are configured appropriately and periodically assess whether the configurations are appropriate to the desired level of network security. |
|
17 |
| RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016 |
4.7 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_4.7 |
|
Network Management And Security |
Anomaly Detection-4.7 |
|
n/a |
Put in place mechanism to detect and remedy any unusual activities in systems, servers, network devices and endpoints. |
|
14 |
| RBI_ITF_NBFC_v2017 |
1.1 |
RBI_ITF_NBFC_v2017_1.1 |
RBI IT Framework 1.1 |
IT Governance |
IT Governance-1.1 |
|
n/a |
NBFCs are required to form an IT Strategy Committee. The chairman of the committee shall be an independent director and CIO & CTO should be a part of the committee. The IT Strategy Committee should meet at an appropriate frequency but not more than six months should elapse between two meetings. The Committee shall work in partnership with other Board committees and Senior Management to provide input to them. It will also carry out review and amend the IT strategies in line with the corporate strategies, Board Policy reviews, cyber security arrangements and any other matter related to IT Governance. Its deliberations may be placed before the Board. |
link |
4 |
| RBI_ITF_NBFC_v2017 |
5 |
RBI_ITF_NBFC_v2017_5 |
RBI IT Framework 5 |
IS Audit |
Policy for Information System Audit (IS Audit)-5 |
|
n/a |
The objective of the IS Audit is to provide an insight on the effectiveness of controls that are in place to ensure confidentiality, integrity and availability of the organization???s IT infrastructure. IS Audit shall identify risks and methods to mitigate risk arising out of IT infrastructure such as server architecture, local and wide area networks, physical and information security, telecommunications etc. |
link |
14 |
| RMiT_v1.0 |
10.33 |
RMiT_v1.0_10.33 |
RMiT 10.33 |
Network Resilience |
Network Resilience - 10.33 |
Shared |
n/a |
A financial institution must design a reliable, scalable and secure enterprise network that is able to support its business activities, including future growth plans. |
link |
28 |
| 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 |
CC6.6 |
SOC_2_CC6.6 |
SOC 2 Type 2 CC6.6 |
Logical and Physical Access Controls |
Security measures against threats outside system boundaries |
Shared |
The customer is responsible for implementing this recommendation. |
• Restricts Access — The types of activities that can occur through a communication
channel (for example, FTP site, router port) are restricted.
• Protects Identification and Authentication Credentials — Identification and authentication credentials are protected during transmission outside its system boundaries.
• Requires Additional Authentication or Credentials — Additional authentication information or credentials are required when accessing the system from outside its
boundaries.
• Implements Boundary Protection Systems — Boundary protection systems (for example, firewalls, demilitarized zones, and intrusion detection systems) are implemented to protect external access points from attempts and unauthorized access and
are monitored to detect such attempts |
|
41 |
| SWIFT_CSCF_v2021 |
1.1 |
SWIFT_CSCF_v2021_1.1 |
SWIFT CSCF v2021 1.1 |
SWIFT Environment Protection |
SWIFT Environment Protection |
|
n/a |
Ensure the protection of the user's local SWIFT infrastructure from potentially compromised elements of the general IT environment and external environment. |
link |
30 |
| SWIFT_CSCF_v2022 |
1.1 |
SWIFT_CSCF_v2022_1.1 |
SWIFT CSCF v2022 1.1 |
1. Restrict Internet Access & Protect Critical Systems from General IT Environment |
Ensure the protection of the user's local SWIFT infrastructure from potentially compromised elements of the general IT environment and external environment. |
Shared |
n/a |
A separated secure zone safeguards the user's SWIFT infrastructure from compromises and attacks on the broader enterprise and external environments. |
link |
22 |
| SWIFT_CSCF_v2022 |
1.5A |
SWIFT_CSCF_v2022_1.5A |
SWIFT CSCF v2022 1.5A |
1. Restrict Internet Access & Protect Critical Systems from General IT Environment |
Ensure the protection of the customer’s connectivity infrastructure from external environment and potentially compromised elements of the general IT environment. |
Shared |
n/a |
A separated secure zone safeguards the customer's infrastructure used for external connectivity from external environments and compromises or attacks on the broader enterprise environment. |
link |
26 |