CHG-12: Unauthorized Software Installation Alerts
Automated mechanisms exist to generate an alert upon the detection of an unauthorized software installation.
Renumbered: Formerly CFG-05.1 and END-03.1 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization use automated mechanisms to generate an alert upon the detection of an unauthorized software installation?
General (19)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC6.8-POF2 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 | 2.3 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG1 | 2.3 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 | 2.3 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 | 2.3 |
| GovRAMP | CM-08(03) |
| GovRAMP Moderate | CM-08(03) |
| GovRAMP High | CM-08(03) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | CM-11(1) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | CM-08(03) CM-11(03) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | CM-08(03) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | CM-08(03) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | CM-08(03) CM-11(03) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | CM-08(03) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | CM-08(03) |
| NIST 800-160 Vol2 R1 | CM-08(03) |
| NIST 800-171A (source) | 3.4.9[c] |
| NIST 800-172 R3 | 03.04.02E |
| NIST 800-172A R3 | DS-A.03.04.02E.b |
US (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | CM-8(3) |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | CM-8(3) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | CM-08(03) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | CM-08(03) |
| USA Federal TSA SDP 2021-02F | III.D.2.c |
| USA Federal TSA / DHS 1580/82-2022-01 | III.D.2.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
Configuration Management (CFG) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CFG domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Configuration management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Configurations mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides). ▪ Secure baseline configurations generate logs that contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Configuration management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Configuration management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) are used to configure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) according to the principles of least functionality and least privilege, mostly conforming to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides).
Level 3 — Well Defined
Change Management (CHG) 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 CHG 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 CHG domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A centralized Change Management Office (CMO), or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CHG domain capabilities. ▪ Technical procedures (e.g., ITIL change enablement) are utilized along with change management governance capabilities (e.g., Change Advisory Board (CAB)) to ensure successful, efficient and secure change management operations. ▪ 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 CHG 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 generate an alert when new software is detected.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Configuration Management (CFG) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ 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. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Configuration Management (CFG) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
Assessment Objectives
- CHG-12_A01 compliance with software installation policies is enforced using organization-defined automated mechanisms.
- CHG-12_A02 automated mechanisms used to monitor compliance are defined.
- CHG-12_A03 the installation of software is monitored using organization-defined automated mechanisms to detect unauthorized software installations.
- CHG-12_A04 automated mechanisms used to detect the presence of unauthorized hardware, software and/or firmware within the system are defined.
- CHG-12_A05 unauthorized software installations are detected using automated mechanisms at the organization-defined frequency.
- CHG-12_A06 the frequency at which automated mechanisms are used to detect the presence of unauthorized hardware, software and/or firmware within the system is defined.
- CHG-12_A07 automated mechanisms generate an alert to organization-defined personnel or roles upon the detection of an unauthorized software installation.
- CHG-12_A08 personnel or roles to be alerted upon the detection of an unauthorized software installation are defined.
- CHG-12_A09 organization-defined actions are taken when unauthorized hardware, software and/or firmware is detected.
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
Small
- ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
Medium
- ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
- CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak)
- Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.com)
Large
- CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak)
- Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.com)
Enterprise
- CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak)
- Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.com)