| Compliance |
The following 33 compliance controls are associated with this Policy definition 'Windows Defender Exploit Guard should be enabled on your machines' (bed48b13-6647-468e-aa2f-1af1d3f4dd40)
| Control Domain |
Control |
Name |
MetadataId |
Category |
Title |
Owner |
Requirements |
Description |
Info |
Policy# |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0 |
ES-2 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v2.0_ES-2 |
Azure Security Benchmark ES-2 |
Endpoint Security |
Use centrally managed modern anti-malware software |
Customer |
Use a centrally managed endpoint anti-malware solution capable of real time and periodic scanning
Azure Security Center can automatically identify the use of a number of popular anti-malware solutions for your virtual machines and report the endpoint protection running status and make recommendations.
Microsoft Antimalware for Azure Cloud Services is the default anti-malware for Windows virtual machines (VMs). For Linux VMs, use third-party antimalware solution. Also, you can use Azure Security Center's Threat detection for data services to detect malware uploaded to Azure Storage accounts.
How to configure Microsoft Antimalware for Cloud Services and Virtual Machines:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security/fundamentals/antimalware
Supported endpoint protection solutions:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/security-center-services?tabs=features-windows#supported-endpoint-protection-solutions- |
n/a |
link |
3 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0 |
ES-2 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0_ES-2 |
Azure Security Benchmark ES-2 |
Endpoint Security |
Use modern anti-malware software |
Shared |
**Security Principle:**
Use anti-malware solutions capable of real-time protection and periodic scanning.
**Azure Guidance:**
Microsoft Defender for Cloud can automatically identify the use of a number of popular anti-malware solutions for your virtual machines and on-premises machines with Azure Arc configured, and report the endpoint protection running status and make recommendations.
Microsoft Defender Antivirus is the default anti-malware solution for Windows server 2016 and above. For Windows server 2012 R2, use Microsoft Antimalware extension to enable SCEP (System Center Endpoint Protection), and Microsoft Defender for Cloud to discover and assess the health status. For Linux VMs, use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint on Linux.
Note: You can also use Microsoft Defender for Cloud's Defender for Storage to detect malware uploaded to Azure Storage accounts.
**Implementation and additional context:**
Supported endpoint protection solutions:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security-center/security-center-services?tabs=features-windows#supported-endpoint-protection-solutions-
How to configure Microsoft Antimalware for Cloud Services and virtual machines:
https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security/fundamentals/antimalware
|
n/a |
link |
5 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0 |
LT-1 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0_LT-1 |
Azure 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 |
17 |
| Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0 |
LT-2 |
Azure_Security_Benchmark_v3.0_LT-2 |
Azure 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 |
| 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 |
|
26 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
SI.L1-3.14.2 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_SI.L1-3.14.2 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
14 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
SI.L1-3.14.4 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_SI.L1-3.14.4 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
5 |
| CMMC_2.0_L2 |
SI.L1-3.14.5 |
CMMC_2.0_L2_SI.L1-3.14.5 |
404 not found |
|
|
|
n/a |
n/a |
|
6 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
SC-3 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_SC-3 |
FedRAMP High SC-3 |
System And Communications Protection |
Security Function Isolation |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system isolates security functions from nonsecurity functions.
Supplemental Guidance: The information system isolates security functions from nonsecurity functions by means of an isolation boundary (implemented via partitions and domains). Such isolation controls access to and protects the integrity of the hardware, software, and firmware that perform those security functions. Information systems implement code separation (i.e., separation of security functions from nonsecurity functions) in a number of ways, including, for example, through the provision of security kernels via processor rings or processor modes. For non-kernel code, security function isolation is often achieved through file system protections that serve to protect the code on disk, and address space protections that protect executing code. Information systems restrict access to security functions through the use of access control mechanisms and by implementing least privilege capabilities. While the ideal is for all of the code within the security function isolation boundary to only contain security-relevant code, it is sometimes necessary to include nonsecurity functions within the isolation boundary as an exception. Related controls: AC-
3, AC-6, SA-4, SA-5, SA-8, SA-13, SC-2, SC-7, SC-39.
References: None. |
link |
4 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
SI-16 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_SI-16 |
FedRAMP High SI-16 |
System And Information Integrity |
Memory Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system implements [Assignment: organization-defined security safeguards] to protect its memory from unauthorized code execution.
Supplemental Guidance: Some adversaries launch attacks with the intent of executing code in non- executable regions of memory or in memory locations that are prohibited. Security safeguards employed to protect memory include, for example, data execution prevention and address space layout randomization. Data execution prevention safeguards can either be hardware-enforced or software-enforced with hardware providing the greater strength of mechanism. Related controls: AC-25, SC-3.
Control Enhancements: None.
References: None. |
link |
2 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
SI-3 |
FedRAMP_High_R4_SI-3 |
FedRAMP High SI-3 |
System And Information Integrity |
Malicious Code Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Employs malicious code protection mechanisms at information system entry and exit points to detect and eradicate malicious code;
b. Updates malicious code protection mechanisms whenever new releases are available in accordance with organizational configuration management policy and procedures;
c. Configures malicious code protection mechanisms to:
1. Perform periodic scans of the information system [Assignment: organization-defined frequency] and real-time scans of files from external sources at [Selection (one or more); endpoint; network entry/exit points] as the files are downloaded, opened, or executed in accordance with organizational security policy; and
2. [Selection (one or more): block malicious code; quarantine malicious code; send alert to administrator; [Assignment: organization-defined action]] in response to malicious code detection; and
d. Addresses the receipt of false positives during malicious code detection and eradication and the resulting potential impact on the availability of the information system.
Supplemental Guidance: Information system entry and exit points include, for example, firewalls, electronic mail servers, web servers, proxy servers, remote-access servers, workstations, notebook computers, and mobile devices. Malicious code includes, for example, viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and spyware. Malicious code can also be encoded in various formats (e.g., UUENCODE, Unicode), contained within compressed or hidden files, or hidden in files using steganography. Malicious code can be transported by different means including, for example, web accesses, electronic mail, electronic mail attachments, and portable storage devices. Malicious code insertions occur through the exploitation of information system vulnerabilities. Malicious code protection mechanisms include, for example, anti-virus signature definitions and reputation-based technologies. A variety of technologies and methods exist to limit or eliminate the effects of malicious code. Pervasive configuration management and comprehensive software integrity controls may be effective in preventing execution of unauthorized code. In addition to commercial off-the-shelf software, malicious code may also be present in custom-built software. This could include, for example, logic bombs, back doors, and other types of cyber attacks that could affect organizational missions/business functions. Traditional malicious code protection mechanisms cannot always detect such code. In these situations, organizations rely instead on other safeguards including, for example, secure coding practices, configuration management and control, trusted procurement processes, and monitoring practices to help ensure that software does not perform functions other than the functions intended. Organizations may determine that in response to the detection of malicious code, different actions may be warranted. For example, organizations can define actions in response to malicious code detection during periodic scans, actions in response to detection of malicious downloads, and/or actions in response to detection of maliciousness when attempting to open or execute files. Related controls: CM-3, MP-2, SA-4, SA-8, SA-12, SA-13,
SC-7, SC-26, SC-44, SI-2, SI-4, SI-7.
References: NIST Special Publication 800-83. |
link |
11 |
| FedRAMP_High_R4 |
SI-3(1) |
FedRAMP_High_R4_SI-3(1) |
FedRAMP High SI-3 (1) |
System And Information Integrity |
Central Management |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization centrally manages malicious code protection mechanisms.
Supplemental Guidance: Central management is the organization-wide management and implementation of malicious code protection mechanisms. Central management includes planning, implementing, assessing, authorizing, and monitoring the organization-defined, centrally managed flaw malicious code protection security controls. Related controls: AU-2, SI-8. |
link |
10 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
SI-16 |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_SI-16 |
FedRAMP Moderate SI-16 |
System And Information Integrity |
Memory Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system implements [Assignment: organization-defined security safeguards] to protect its memory from unauthorized code execution.
Supplemental Guidance: Some adversaries launch attacks with the intent of executing code in non- executable regions of memory or in memory locations that are prohibited. Security safeguards employed to protect memory include, for example, data execution prevention and address space layout randomization. Data execution prevention safeguards can either be hardware-enforced or software-enforced with hardware providing the greater strength of mechanism. Related controls: AC-25, SC-3.
Control Enhancements: None.
References: None. |
link |
2 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
SI-3 |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_SI-3 |
FedRAMP Moderate SI-3 |
System And Information Integrity |
Malicious Code Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Employs malicious code protection mechanisms at information system entry and exit points to detect and eradicate malicious code;
b. Updates malicious code protection mechanisms whenever new releases are available in accordance with organizational configuration management policy and procedures;
c. Configures malicious code protection mechanisms to:
1. Perform periodic scans of the information system [Assignment: organization-defined frequency] and real-time scans of files from external sources at [Selection (one or more); endpoint; network entry/exit points] as the files are downloaded, opened, or executed in accordance with organizational security policy; and
2. [Selection (one or more): block malicious code; quarantine malicious code; send alert to administrator; [Assignment: organization-defined action]] in response to malicious code detection; and
d. Addresses the receipt of false positives during malicious code detection and eradication and the resulting potential impact on the availability of the information system.
Supplemental Guidance: Information system entry and exit points include, for example, firewalls, electronic mail servers, web servers, proxy servers, remote-access servers, workstations, notebook computers, and mobile devices. Malicious code includes, for example, viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and spyware. Malicious code can also be encoded in various formats (e.g., UUENCODE, Unicode), contained within compressed or hidden files, or hidden in files using steganography. Malicious code can be transported by different means including, for example, web accesses, electronic mail, electronic mail attachments, and portable storage devices. Malicious code insertions occur through the exploitation of information system vulnerabilities. Malicious code protection mechanisms include, for example, anti-virus signature definitions and reputation-based technologies. A variety of technologies and methods exist to limit or eliminate the effects of malicious code. Pervasive configuration management and comprehensive software integrity controls may be effective in preventing execution of unauthorized code. In addition to commercial off-the-shelf software, malicious code may also be present in custom-built software. This could include, for example, logic bombs, back doors, and other types of cyber attacks that could affect organizational missions/business functions. Traditional malicious code protection mechanisms cannot always detect such code. In these situations, organizations rely instead on other safeguards including, for example, secure coding practices, configuration management and control, trusted procurement processes, and monitoring practices to help ensure that software does not perform functions other than the functions intended. Organizations may determine that in response to the detection of malicious code, different actions may be warranted. For example, organizations can define actions in response to malicious code detection during periodic scans, actions in response to detection of malicious downloads, and/or actions in response to detection of maliciousness when attempting to open or execute files. Related controls: CM-3, MP-2, SA-4, SA-8, SA-12, SA-13,
SC-7, SC-26, SC-44, SI-2, SI-4, SI-7.
References: NIST Special Publication 800-83. |
link |
11 |
| FedRAMP_Moderate_R4 |
SI-3(1) |
FedRAMP_Moderate_R4_SI-3(1) |
FedRAMP Moderate SI-3 (1) |
System And Information Integrity |
Central Management |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization centrally manages malicious code protection mechanisms.
Supplemental Guidance: Central management is the organization-wide management and implementation of malicious code protection mechanisms. Central management includes planning, implementing, assessing, authorizing, and monitoring the organization-defined, centrally managed flaw malicious code protection security controls. Related controls: AU-2, SI-8. |
link |
10 |
| 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 |
29 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.14.2 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.14.2 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.14.2 |
System and Information Integrity |
Provide protection from malicious code at designated locations within organizational systems. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Designated locations include system entry and exit points which may include firewalls, remote-access servers, workstations, electronic mail servers, web servers, proxy servers, notebook computers, and mobile devices. Malicious code includes viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and spyware. Malicious code can be encoded in various formats (e.g., UUENCODE, Unicode), contained within compressed or hidden files, or hidden in files using techniques such as steganography. Malicious code can be inserted into systems in a variety of ways including web accesses, electronic mail, electronic mail attachments, and portable storage devices. Malicious code insertions occur through the exploitation of system vulnerabilities. Malicious code protection mechanisms include anti-virus signature definitions and reputation-based technologies. A variety of technologies and methods exist to limit or eliminate the effects of malicious code. Pervasive configuration management and comprehensive software integrity controls may be effective in preventing execution of unauthorized code. In addition to commercial off-the-shelf software, malicious code may also be present in custom-built software. This could include logic bombs, back doors, and other types of cyber-attacks that could affect organizational missions/business functions. Traditional malicious code protection mechanisms cannot always detect such code. In these situations, organizations rely instead on other safeguards including secure coding practices, configuration management and control, trusted procurement processes, and monitoring practices to help ensure that software does not perform functions other than the functions intended. [SP 800-83] provides guidance on malware incident prevention. |
link |
21 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.14.4 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.14.4 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.14.4 |
System and Information Integrity |
Update malicious code protection mechanisms when new releases are available. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Malicious code protection mechanisms include anti-virus signature definitions and reputation-based technologies. A variety of technologies and methods exist to limit or eliminate the effects of malicious code. Pervasive configuration management and comprehensive software integrity controls may be effective in preventing execution of unauthorized code. In addition to commercial off-the-shelf software, malicious code may also be present in custom-built software. This could include logic bombs, back doors, and other types of cyber-attacks that could affect organizational missions/business functions. Traditional malicious code protection mechanisms cannot always detect such code. In these situations, organizations rely instead on other safeguards including secure coding practices, configuration management and control, trusted procurement processes, and monitoring practices to help ensure that software does not perform functions other than the functions intended. |
link |
11 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3 |
.14.5 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R2_3.14.5 |
NIST SP 800-171 R2 3.14.5 |
System and Information Integrity |
Perform periodic scans of organizational systems and real-time scans of files from external sources as files are downloaded, opened, or executed. |
Shared |
Microsoft and the customer share responsibilities for implementing this requirement. |
Periodic scans of organizational systems and real-time scans of files from external sources can detect malicious code. Malicious code can be encoded in various formats (e.g., UUENCODE, Unicode), contained within compressed or hidden files, or hidden in files using techniques such as steganography. Malicious code can be inserted into systems in a variety of ways including web accesses, electronic mail, electronic mail attachments, and portable storage devices. Malicious code insertions occur through the exploitation of system vulnerabilities. |
link |
6 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
SC-3 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_SC-3 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 SC-3 |
System And Communications Protection |
Security Function Isolation |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system isolates security functions from nonsecurity functions.
Supplemental Guidance: The information system isolates security functions from nonsecurity functions by means of an isolation boundary (implemented via partitions and domains). Such isolation controls access to and protects the integrity of the hardware, software, and firmware that perform those security functions. Information systems implement code separation (i.e., separation of security functions from nonsecurity functions) in a number of ways, including, for example, through the provision of security kernels via processor rings or processor modes. For non-kernel code, security function isolation is often achieved through file system protections that serve to protect the code on disk, and address space protections that protect executing code. Information systems restrict access to security functions through the use of access control mechanisms and by implementing least privilege capabilities. While the ideal is for all of the code within the security function isolation boundary to only contain security-relevant code, it is sometimes necessary to include nonsecurity functions within the isolation boundary as an exception. Related controls: AC-
3, AC-6, SA-4, SA-5, SA-8, SA-13, SC-2, SC-7, SC-39.
References: None. |
link |
4 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
SI-16 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_SI-16 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 SI-16 |
System And Information Integrity |
Memory Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The information system implements [Assignment: organization-defined security safeguards] to protect its memory from unauthorized code execution.
Supplemental Guidance: Some adversaries launch attacks with the intent of executing code in non- executable regions of memory or in memory locations that are prohibited. Security safeguards employed to protect memory include, for example, data execution prevention and address space layout randomization. Data execution prevention safeguards can either be hardware-enforced or software-enforced with hardware providing the greater strength of mechanism. Related controls: AC-25, SC-3.
Control Enhancements: None.
References: None. |
link |
2 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
SI-3 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_SI-3 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 SI-3 |
System And Information Integrity |
Malicious Code Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization:
a. Employs malicious code protection mechanisms at information system entry and exit points to detect and eradicate malicious code;
b. Updates malicious code protection mechanisms whenever new releases are available in accordance with organizational configuration management policy and procedures;
c. Configures malicious code protection mechanisms to:
1. Perform periodic scans of the information system [Assignment: organization-defined frequency] and real-time scans of files from external sources at [Selection (one or more); endpoint; network entry/exit points] as the files are downloaded, opened, or executed in accordance with organizational security policy; and
2. [Selection (one or more): block malicious code; quarantine malicious code; send alert to administrator; [Assignment: organization-defined action]] in response to malicious code detection; and
d. Addresses the receipt of false positives during malicious code detection and eradication and the resulting potential impact on the availability of the information system.
Supplemental Guidance: Information system entry and exit points include, for example, firewalls, electronic mail servers, web servers, proxy servers, remote-access servers, workstations, notebook computers, and mobile devices. Malicious code includes, for example, viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and spyware. Malicious code can also be encoded in various formats (e.g., UUENCODE, Unicode), contained within compressed or hidden files, or hidden in files using steganography. Malicious code can be transported by different means including, for example, web accesses, electronic mail, electronic mail attachments, and portable storage devices. Malicious code insertions occur through the exploitation of information system vulnerabilities. Malicious code protection mechanisms include, for example, anti-virus signature definitions and reputation-based technologies. A variety of technologies and methods exist to limit or eliminate the effects of malicious code. Pervasive configuration management and comprehensive software integrity controls may be effective in preventing execution of unauthorized code. In addition to commercial off-the-shelf software, malicious code may also be present in custom-built software. This could include, for example, logic bombs, back doors, and other types of cyber attacks that could affect organizational missions/business functions. Traditional malicious code protection mechanisms cannot always detect such code. In these situations, organizations rely instead on other safeguards including, for example, secure coding practices, configuration management and control, trusted procurement processes, and monitoring practices to help ensure that software does not perform functions other than the functions intended. Organizations may determine that in response to the detection of malicious code, different actions may be warranted. For example, organizations can define actions in response to malicious code detection during periodic scans, actions in response to detection of malicious downloads, and/or actions in response to detection of maliciousness when attempting to open or execute files. Related controls: CM-3, MP-2, SA-4, SA-8, SA-12, SA-13,
SC-7, SC-26, SC-44, SI-2, SI-4, SI-7.
References: NIST Special Publication 800-83. |
link |
11 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R4 |
SI-3(1) |
NIST_SP_800-53_R4_SI-3(1) |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 SI-3 (1) |
System And Information Integrity |
Central Management |
Shared |
n/a |
The organization centrally manages malicious code protection mechanisms.
Supplemental Guidance: Central management is the organization-wide management and implementation of malicious code protection mechanisms. Central management includes planning, implementing, assessing, authorizing, and monitoring the organization-defined, centrally managed flaw malicious code protection security controls. Related controls: AU-2, SI-8. |
link |
10 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
SC-3 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_SC-3 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-3 |
System and Communications Protection |
Security Function Isolation |
Shared |
n/a |
Isolate security functions from nonsecurity functions. |
link |
4 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
SI-16 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_SI-16 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-16 |
System and Information Integrity |
Memory Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
Implement the following controls to protect the system memory from unauthorized code execution: [Assignment: organization-defined controls]. |
link |
2 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5 |
SI-3 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5_SI-3 |
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-3 |
System and Information Integrity |
Malicious Code Protection |
Shared |
n/a |
a. Implement [Selection (OneOrMore): signature based;non-signature based] malicious code protection mechanisms at system entry and exit points to detect and eradicate malicious code;
b. Automatically update malicious code protection mechanisms as new releases are available in accordance with organizational configuration management policy and procedures;
c. Configure malicious code protection mechanisms to:
1. Perform periodic scans of the system [Assignment: organization-defined frequency] and real-time scans of files from external sources at [Selection (OneOrMore): endpoint;network entry and exit points] as the files are downloaded, opened, or executed in accordance with organizational policy; and
2. [Selection (OneOrMore): block malicious code;quarantine malicious code;take [Assignment: organization-defined action] ] ; and send alert to [Assignment: organization-defined personnel or roles] in response to malicious code detection; and
d. Address the receipt of false positives during malicious code detection and eradication and the resulting potential impact on the availability of the system. |
link |
11 |
| NZ_ISM_v3.5 |
SS-3 |
NZ_ISM_v3.5_SS-3 |
NZISM Security Benchmark SS-3 |
Software security |
14.1.9 Maintaining hardened SOEs |
Customer |
n/a |
Whilst a SOE can be sufficiently hardened when it is deployed, its security will progressively degrade over time. Agencies can address the degradation of the security of a SOE by ensuring that patches are continually applied, system users are not able to disable or bypass security functionality and antivirus and other security software is appropriately maintained with the latest signatures and updates.
End Point Agents monitor traffic and apply security policies on applications, storage interfaces and data in real-time. Administrators actively block or monitor and log policy breaches. The End Point Agent can also create forensic monitoring to facilitate incident investigation.
End Point Agents can monitor user activity, such as the cut, copy, paste, print, print screen operations and copying data to external drives and other devices. The Agent can then apply policies to limit such activity. |
link |
17 |
| RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016 |
13.1 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_13.1 |
|
Advanced Real-Timethreat Defenceand Management |
Advanced Real-Timethreat Defenceand Management-13.1 |
|
n/a |
Build a robust defence against the installation, spread, and execution of malicious code at multiple points in the enterprise. |
|
27 |
| RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016 |
13.2 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_13.2 |
|
Advanced Real-Timethreat Defenceand Management |
Advanced Real-Timethreat Defenceand Management-13.2 |
|
n/a |
Implement Anti-malware, Antivirus protection including behavioural detection systems for all categories of devices ???(Endpoints such as PCs/laptops/ mobile devices etc.), servers (operating systems, databases, applications, etc.), Web/Internet gateways, email-gateways, Wireless networks, SMS servers etc. including tools and processes for centralised management and monitoring. |
|
22 |
| RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016 |
15.1 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_15.1 |
|
Data Leak Prevention Strategy |
Data Leak Prevention Strategy-15.1 |
|
n/a |
Develop a comprehensive data loss/leakage prevention strategy to safeguard sensitive (including confidential)business and customer data/information. |
|
8 |
| RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016 |
15.3 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_15.3 |
|
Data Leak Prevention Strategy |
Data Leak Prevention Strategy-15.3 |
|
n/a |
Similar arrangements need to be ensured at the vendor managed facilities as well. |
|
5 |
| RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016 |
5.1 |
RBI_CSF_Banks_v2016_5.1 |
|
Secure Configuration |
Secure Configuration-5.1 |
|
n/a |
Document and apply baseline security requirements/configurations to all
categories of devices (end-points/workstations, mobile devices, operating systems,
databases, applications, network devices, security devices, security systems, etc.),
throughout the lifecycle (from conception to deployment) and carry out reviews
periodically. |
|
9 |
| 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 |
|