Skip to main content

CFG-04.4: Pattern-Hiding Displays

CFG 9 — Critical Protect

Mechanisms exist to implement pattern-hiding displays to conceal information previously visible on the display during the session lock.

Renumbered: Formerly IAC-24.1 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization implement pattern-hiding displays to conceal information previously visible on the display during the session lock?

General (14)
Framework Mapping Values
CSA CCM 4.1.0 UEM-06
GovRAMP AC-11(01)
GovRAMP Moderate AC-11(01)
GovRAMP High AC-11(01)
NIST 800-53 R4 AC-11(1)
NIST 800-53 R5.2 AC-11(01)
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) AC-11(01)
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) AC-11(01)
NIST 800-82 R3 AC-11(01)
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay AC-11(01)
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay AC-11(01)
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) 3.1.10
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.01.10.c
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.01.10.c
US (6)
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 03.01.10.C

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Identification & Authentication (IAC) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC). ▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts. ▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services. ▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.

Level 3 — Well Defined

Configuration Management (CFG) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with CFG domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CFG domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A configuration management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CFG domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of configuration management operations (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CFG domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to implement pattern-hiding displays to conceal information previously visible on the display during the session lock.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 — Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Assessment Objectives

  1. CFG-04.4_A01 information previously visible on the display is concealed via device lock with a publicly viewable image.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Small

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Medium

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Large

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Enterprise

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.