compliance controls are associated with this Policy definition 'Function apps should have authentication enabled' (c75248c1-ea1d-4a9c-8fc9-29a6aabd5da8)
| Control Domain |
Control |
Name |
MetadataId |
Category |
Title |
Owner |
Requirements |
Description |
Info |
Policy# |
| CIS_Azure_1.1.0 |
9.1 |
CIS_Azure_1.1.0_9.1 |
CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark recommendation 9.1 |
9 AppService |
Ensure App Service Authentication is set on Azure App Service |
Shared |
The customer is responsible for implementing this recommendation. |
Azure App Service Authentication is a feature that can prevent anonymous HTTP requests from reaching the API app, or authenticate those that have tokens before they reach the API app. If an anonymous request is received from a browser, App Service will redirect to a logon page. To handle the logon process, a choice from a set of identity providers can be made, or a custom authentication mechanism can be implemented. |
link |
5 |
| CIS_Azure_1.3.0 |
9.1 |
CIS_Azure_1.3.0_9.1 |
CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark recommendation 9.1 |
9 AppService |
Ensure App Service Authentication is set on Azure App Service |
Shared |
The customer is responsible for implementing this recommendation. |
Azure App Service Authentication is a feature that can prevent anonymous HTTP requests from reaching the API app, or authenticate those that have tokens before they reach the API app. If an anonymous request is received from a browser, App Service will redirect to a logon page. To handle the logon process, a choice from a set of identity providers can be made, or a custom authentication mechanism can be implemented. |
link |
5 |
| CIS_Azure_1.4.0 |
9.1 |
CIS_Azure_1.4.0_9.1 |
CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark recommendation 9.1 |
9 AppService |
Ensure App Service Authentication is set up for apps in Azure App Service |
Shared |
The customer is responsible for implementing this recommendation. |
Azure App Service Authentication is a feature that can prevent anonymous HTTP requests from reaching the API app, or authenticate those that have tokens before they reach the API app. If an anonymous request is received from a browser, App Service will redirect to a logon page. To handle the logon process, a choice from a set of identity providers can be made, or a custom authentication mechanism can be implemented. |
link |
5 |
| CIS_Azure_2.0.0 |
9.1 |
CIS_Azure_2.0.0_9.1 |
CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark recommendation 9.1 |
9 |
Ensure App Service Authentication is set up for apps in Azure App Service |
Shared |
This is only required for App Services which require authentication. Enabling on site like a marketing or support website will prevent unauthenticated access which would be undesirable.
Adding Authentication requirement will increase cost of App Service and require additional security components to facilitate the authentication. |
Azure App Service Authentication is a feature that can prevent anonymous HTTP requests from reaching a Web Application or authenticate those with tokens before they reach the app. If an anonymous request is received from a browser, App Service will redirect to a logon page. To handle the logon process, a choice from a set of identity providers can be made, or a custom authentication mechanism can be implemented.
By Enabling App Service Authentication, every incoming HTTP request passes through it before being handled by the application code. It also handles authentication of users with the specified provider (Azure Active Directory, Facebook, Google, Microsoft Account, and Twitter), validation, storing and refreshing of tokens, managing the authenticated sessions and injecting identity information into request headers. |
link |
5 |
| CIS_Controls_v8.1 |
10.7 |
CIS_Controls_v8.1_10.7 |
CIS Controls v8.1 10.7 |
Malware Defenses |
Use behaviour based anti-malware software |
Shared |
Use behaviour based anti-malware software |
To ensure that a generic anti-malware software is not used. |
|
100 |
| CIS_Controls_v8.1 |
13.1 |
CIS_Controls_v8.1_13.1 |
CIS Controls v8.1 13.1 |
Network Monitoring and Defense |
Centralize security event alerting |
Shared |
1. Centralize security event alerting across enterprise assets for log correlation and analysis.
2. Best practice implementation requires the use of a SIEM, which includes vendor-defined event correlation alerts.
3.A log analytics platform configured with security-relevant correlation alerts also satisfies this safeguard. |
To ensure that any security event is immediately alerted enterprise-wide. |
|
102 |
| CIS_Controls_v8.1 |
13.3 |
CIS_Controls_v8.1_13.3 |
CIS Controls v8.1 13.3 |
Network Monitoring and Defense |
Deploy a network intrusion detection solution |
Shared |
1. Deploy a network intrusion detection solution on enterprise assets, where appropriate.
2. Example implementations include the use of a Network Intrusion Detection System (NIDS) or equivalent cloud service provider (CSP) service. |
To enhance the organization's cybersecurity. |
|
100 |
| CIS_Controls_v8.1 |
18.4 |
CIS_Controls_v8.1_18.4 |
CIS Controls v8.1 18.4 |
Penetration Testing |
Validate security measures |
Shared |
Validate security measures after each penetration test. If deemed necessary, modify rulesets and capabilities to detect the techniques used during testing. |
To ensure ongoing alignment with evolving threat landscapes and bolstering the overall security posture of the enterprise. |
|
94 |
| CIS_Controls_v8.1 |
8.11 |
CIS_Controls_v8.1_8.11 |
CIS Controls v8.1 8.11 |
Audit Log Management |
Conduct audit log reviews |
Shared |
1. Conduct reviews of audit logs to detect anomalies or abnormal events that could indicate a potential threat.
2. Conduct reviews on a weekly, or more frequent, basis.
|
To ensure the integrity of the data in audit logs. |
|
62 |
| CMMC_L2_v1.9.0 |
AC.L2_3.1.3 |
CMMC_L2_v1.9.0_AC.L2_3.1.3 |
Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 2 v1.9.0 AC.L2 3.1.3 |
Access Control |
Control CUI Flow |
Shared |
Control the flow of CUI in accordance with approved authorizations. |
To regulate the flow of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in accordance with approved authorizations |
|
46 |
| CSA_v4.0.12 |
DCS_02 |
CSA_v4.0.12_DCS_02 |
CSA Cloud Controls Matrix v4.0.12 DCS 02 |
Datacenter Security |
Off-Site Transfer Authorization Policy and Procedures |
Shared |
n/a |
Establish, document, approve, communicate, apply, evaluate and maintain
policies and procedures for the relocation or transfer of hardware, software,
or data/information to an offsite or alternate location. The relocation or transfer
request requires the written or cryptographically verifiable authorization.
Review and update the policies and procedures at least annually. |
|
45 |
| CSA_v4.0.12 |
DSP_05 |
CSA_v4.0.12_DSP_05 |
CSA Cloud Controls Matrix v4.0.12 DSP 05 |
Data Security and Privacy Lifecycle Management |
Data Flow Documentation |
Shared |
n/a |
Create data flow documentation to identify what data is processed,
stored or transmitted where. Review data flow documentation at defined intervals,
at least annually, and after any change. |
|
57 |
| EU_GDPR_2016_679_Art. |
24 |
EU_GDPR_2016_679_Art._24 |
EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016/679 Art. 24 |
Chapter 4 - Controller and processor |
Responsibility of the controller |
Shared |
n/a |
n/a |
|
311 |
| EU_GDPR_2016_679_Art. |
25 |
EU_GDPR_2016_679_Art._25 |
EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016/679 Art. 25 |
Chapter 4 - Controller and processor |
Data protection by design and by default |
Shared |
n/a |
n/a |
|
311 |
| EU_GDPR_2016_679_Art. |
28 |
EU_GDPR_2016_679_Art._28 |
EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016/679 Art. 28 |
Chapter 4 - Controller and processor |
Processor |
Shared |
n/a |
n/a |
|
311 |
| EU_GDPR_2016_679_Art. |
32 |
EU_GDPR_2016_679_Art._32 |
EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016/679 Art. 32 |
Chapter 4 - Controller and processor |
Security of processing |
Shared |
n/a |
n/a |
|
311 |
| FBI_Criminal_Justice_Information_Services_v5.9.5_5 |
.5 |
FBI_Criminal_Justice_Information_Services_v5.9.5_5.5 |
FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) v5.9.5 5.5 |
Policy and Implementation - Access Control |
Access Control |
Shared |
Refer to Section 5.13.6 for additional access control requirements related to mobile devices used to access CJI. |
Access control provides the planning and implementation of mechanisms to restrict reading, writing, processing, and transmission of CJIS information and the modification of information systems, applications, services and communication configurations allowing access to CJIS information. |
|
97 |
| HITRUST_CSF_v11.3 |
09.ab |
HITRUST_CSF_v11.3_09.ab |
HITRUST CSF v11.3 09.ab |
Monitoring |
To establish procedures for monitoring use of information processing systems and facilities to check for use and effectiveness of implemented controls. |
Shared |
1. It is to be specified how often audit logs are reviewed, how the reviews are documented, and the specific roles and responsibilities of the personnel conducting the reviews, including the professional certifications or other qualifications required.
2. All relevant legal requirements applicable to its monitoring of authorized access and unauthorized access attempts is to be complied with. |
Procedures for monitoring use of information processing systems and facilities shall be established to check for use and effectiveness of implemented controls. The results of the monitoring activities shall be reviewed regularly. |
|
114 |
| HITRUST_CSF_v11.3 |
09.w |
HITRUST_CSF_v11.3_09.w |
HITRUST CSF v11.3 09.w |
Exchange of Information |
To develop and implement policies and procedures, to protect information associated with the interconnection of business information systems. |
Shared |
1. A security baseline is to be documented and implemented for interconnected systems.
2. Other requirements and controls linked to interconnected business systems are to include the separation of operational systems from interconnected system, retention and back-up of information held on the system, and fallback requirements and arrangements. |
Policies and procedures shall be developed and implemented to protect information associated with the interconnection of business information systems. |
|
45 |
| ISO_IEC_27002_2022 |
5.14 |
ISO_IEC_27002_2022_5.14 |
ISO IEC 27002 2022 5.14 |
Protection,
Preventive Control |
Information transfer |
Shared |
To maintain the security of information transferred within an organization and with any external interested party. |
Information transfer rules, procedures, or agreements should be in place for all types of transfer facilities within the organization and between the organization and other parties. |
|
46 |
| New_Zealand_ISM |
14.5.8.C.01 |
New_Zealand_ISM_14.5.8.C.01 |
New_Zealand_ISM_14.5.8.C.01 |
14. Software security |
14.5.8.C.01 Web applications |
|
n/a |
Agencies SHOULD follow the documentation provided in the Open Web Application Security Project guide to building secure Web applications and Web services. |
|
18 |
| NIST_SP_800-171_R3_3 |
.1.3 |
NIST_SP_800-171_R3_3.1.3 |
NIST 800-171 R3 3.1.3 |
Access Control |
Information Flow Enforcement |
Shared |
Information flow control regulates where CUI can transit 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 keeping CUI 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 CUI 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., encrypted tunnels, routers, gateways, and firewalls) that use rule sets or establish configuration settings that restrict system services, provide a packet-filtering capability based on header information, or provide a 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 that represent different security domains with different security policies introduces the 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 information access only), employing hardware mechanisms to enforce one-way information flows, and implementing trustworthy regrading mechanisms to reassign security attributes and security labels. |
Enforce approved authorizations for controlling the flow of CUI within the system and between connected systems. |
|
46 |
| NIST_SP_800-53_R5.1.1 |
AC.4 |
NIST_SP_800-53_R5.1.1_AC.4 |
NIST SP 800-53 R5.1.1 AC.4 |
Access Control |
Information Flow Enforcement |
Shared |
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]. |
Information flow control regulates where information can travel within a system and between systems (in contrast to who is allowed to access the information) and without regard to subsequent accesses to that information. Flow control restrictions include blocking external traffic that claims to be from within the organization, keeping export-controlled information from being transmitted in the clear to the Internet, restricting web requests that are not from the internal web proxy server, and limiting information transfers between organizations based on data structures and content. Transferring information between organizations may require an agreement specifying how the information flow is enforced (see CA-3). Transferring information between systems in different security or privacy domains with different security or privacy policies introduces the risk that such transfers violate one or more domain security or privacy policies. In such situations, information owners/stewards provide guidance at designated policy enforcement points between connected systems. Organizations consider mandating specific architectural solutions to enforce specific security and privacy policies. Enforcement includes prohibiting information transfers between connected systems (i.e., allowing access only), verifying write permissions before accepting information from another security or privacy domain or connected system, employing hardware mechanisms to enforce one-way information flows, and implementing trustworthy regrading mechanisms to reassign security or privacy attributes and labels.
Organizations commonly employ information flow control policies and enforcement mechanisms to control the flow of information between designated sources and destinations within systems and between connected systems. Flow control is based on the characteristics of the information and/or the information path. Enforcement occurs, for example, in boundary protection devices that employ rule sets or establish configuration settings that restrict system services, provide a packet-filtering capability based on header information, or provide a message-filtering capability based on message content. Organizations also consider the trustworthiness of filtering and/or inspection mechanisms (i.e., hardware, firmware, and software components) that are critical to information flow enforcement. Control enhancements 3 through 32 primarily address cross-domain solution needs that focus on more advanced filtering techniques, in-depth analysis, and stronger flow enforcement mechanisms implemented in cross-domain products, such as high-assurance guards. Such capabilities are generally not available in commercial off-the-shelf products. Information flow enforcement also applies to control plane traffic (e.g., routing and DNS). |
|
44 |
| NZ_ISM_v3.5 |
SS-9 |
NZ_ISM_v3.5_SS-9 |
NZISM Security Benchmark SS-9 |
Software security |
14.5.8 Web applications |
Customer |
n/a |
The Open Web Application Security Project guide provides a comprehensive resource to consult when developing Web applications. |
link |
12 |
| RMiT_v1.0 |
10.54 |
RMiT_v1.0_10.54 |
RMiT 10.54 |
Access Control |
Access Control - 10.54 |
Shared |
n/a |
A financial institution must implement an appropriate access controls policy for the identification, authentication and authorisation of users (internal and external users such as third party service providers). This must address both logical and physical technology access controls which are commensurate with the level of risk of unauthorised access to its technology systems. |
link |
14 |
| SOC_2023 |
A1.1 |
SOC_2023_A1.1 |
SOC 2023 A1.1 |
Additional Criteria for Availability |
To effectively manage capacity demand and facilitate the implementation of additional capacity as needed. |
Shared |
n/a |
The entity maintains, monitors, and evaluates current processing capacity and use of system components (infrastructure, data, and software) to manage capacity demand and to enable the implementation of additional capacity to help meet its objectives. |
|
112 |
| SOC_2023 |
CC7.2 |
SOC_2023_CC7.2 |
SOC 2023 CC7.2 |
Systems Operations |
To maintain robust security measures and ensure operational resilience. |
Shared |
n/a |
The entity monitors system components and the operation of those components for anomalies that are indicative of malicious acts, natural disasters, and errors affecting the entity's ability to meet its objectives; anomalies are analysed to determine whether they represent security events. |
|
168 |
| SOC_2023 |
CC8.1 |
SOC_2023_CC8.1 |
SOC 2023 CC8.1 |
Change Management |
To minimise risks, ensure quality, optimise efficiency, and enhance resilience in the face of change. |
Shared |
n/a |
The entity authorizes, designs, develops or acquires, configures, documents, tests, approves, and implements changes to infrastructure, data, software, and procedures to meet its objectives by Managing Changes Throughout the System Life Cycle, authorizing changes, designing and developing changes, documenting all changes, tracking system changes, configuring software's, testing system changes, approving system changes, deploying system changes, identifying and evaluating system changes, creating baseline configurations for IT technologies and providing necessary changes in emergency situations. |
|
148 |
| SOC_2023 |
PI1.3 |
SOC_2023_PI1.3 |
SOC 2023 PI1.3 |
Additional Criteria for Processing Integrity (Over the provision of services or the production, manufacturing, or distribution of goods) |
To enhance efficiency, accuracy, and compliance with organizational standards and regulatory requirements with regards to system processing to result in products, services, and reporting to meet the entity’s objectives. |
Shared |
n/a |
The entity implements policies and procedures over system processing to result in products, services, and reporting to meet the entity’s objectives. |
|
50 |
| SWIFT_CSCF_2024 |
1.1 |
SWIFT_CSCF_2024_1.1 |
SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework 2024 1.1 |
Physical and Environmental Security |
Swift Environment Protection |
Shared |
1. Segmentation between the user's Swift infrastructure and the larger enterprise network reduces the attack surface and has shown to be an effective way to defend against cyber-attacks that commonly involve a compromise of the general enterprise IT environment.
2. Effective segmentation includes network-level separation, access restrictions, and connectivity restrictions. |
To ensure the protection of the user’s Swift infrastructure from potentially compromised elements of the general IT environment and external environment. |
|
69 |