CHG-04.2: Signed Components
Mechanisms exist to prevent the installation of software and firmware components without verification that the component has been digitally signed using an organization-approved certificate authority.
Control Question: Does the organization prevent the installation of software and firmware components without verification that the component has been digitally signed using an organization-approved certificate authority?
General (10)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| IEC 62443-4-2 2019 | CR 3.4 (7.6.1) CR 3.4 (7.6.3(1)) SAR 2.4 (12.2.3(1)) EDR 3.13 (13.8.1) HDR 3.10 (14.5.3(1)) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | CM-5(3) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (high) | CM-5(3) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | CM-14 SI-7(15) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | SI-7(15) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) | CM-14 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | SI-7(15) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | CM-14 SI-7(15) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 | CM-14 SI-7(15) |
| SPARTA | CM0021 |
US (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US FedRAMP R4 | CM-5(3) |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | CM-5(3) |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | CM-5(3) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | CM-14 SI-7(15) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | CM-14 SI-7(15) |
| US IRS 1075 | CM-14 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | CM-5(3) |
APAC (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2024 | ISM-1796 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to prevent the installation of software and firmware components without verification that the component has been digitally signed using an organization-approved certificate authority.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to prevent the installation of software and firmware components without verification that the component has been digitally signed using an organization-approved certificate authority.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
C|P-CMM2 is N/A, since a well-defined process is required to prevent the installation of software and firmware components without verification that the component has been digitally signed using an organization-approved certificate authority.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Change Management (CHG) efforts are standardized across the organization and centrally managed, where technically feasible, to ensure consistency. CMM Level 3 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Exists to govern changes to systems, applications and services to ensure their stability, reliability and predictability. o Reviews RFC for cybersecurity and data privacy ramifications. o Notifies stakeholders to ensure awareness of the impact of proposed changes.
- An IT Asset Management (ITAM) function, or similar function, ensures compliance with requirements for asset management.
- ITAM leverages a Configuration Management Database (CMDB), or similar tool, as the authoritative source of IT assets.
- Logical Access Control (LAC) is governed to limit the ability of non-administrators from making configuration changes to systems, applications and services.
- A formal Change Management (CM) program ensures that no unauthorized changes are made, that all changes are documented, that services are not disrupted and that resources are used efficiently.
- The CM function has formally defined roles and associated responsibilities.
- Changes are tracked through a centralized technology solution to submit, review, approve and assign Requests for Change (RFC).
- A Change Advisory Board (CAB), or similar function:
- IT personnel use dedicated development/test/staging environments to deploy and evaluate changes, wherever technically possible.
- Administrative processes exist and technologies configured to prevent the installation of software and firmware components without verification that the component has been digitally signed using a certificate that is recognized and approved by the organization.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Change Management (CHG) efforts are metrics driven and provide sufficient management insight (based on a quantitative understanding of process capabilities) to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and identify areas for improvement. In addition to CMM Level 3 criteria, CMM Level 4 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
- Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
- Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
- Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
- Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
- Both business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
See C|P-CMM4. There are no defined C|P-CMM5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to prevent the installation of software and firmware components without verification that the component has been digitally signed using an organization-approved certificate authority.
Assessment Objectives
- CHG-04.2_A01 software or firmware components requiring verification of a digitally signed certificate before installation are defined.
- CHG-04.2_A02 the installation of software or firmware components is prevented unless it is verified that the software has been digitally signed using a certificate recognized and approved by the organization.
- CHG-04.2_A03 software or firmware components to be authenticated by cryptographic mechanisms prior to installation are defined.
- CHG-04.2_A04 cryptographic mechanisms are implemented to authenticate software or firmware components prior to installation.