END-03: Endpoint Protection Mechanisms
Mechanisms exist to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of endpoint devices.
Renumbered: Formerly END-02 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, END-03 was Prohibit Installation Without Privileged Status. That control is now CHG-04.2.
Control Question: Does the organization protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of endpoint devices?
General (35)
US (17)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SC-28 |
| USA Federal DHS CISA TIC 3.0 | 3.PEP.IN.EDRES |
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | ARCHITECTURE-3f ARCHITECTURE-3h |
| USA Federal CMMC 2.0 Level 2 | SCL2.-3.13.16 |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | 5.20.4.3 SC-28 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) | SC-28 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | SC-28 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | SC-28 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) | SC-28 |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | SC-28 |
| USA Federal HIPAA Security Rule NIST SP 800-66 R2 | § 164.310(c) |
| USA Federal HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 | § 164.310(c) |
| USA Federal TSA SDP 2021-02F | III.D.1.a |
| USA Massachusetts 201 CMR 17.00 2008 | 17.04(6) |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.14(a)(2) 500.14(b)(1) |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | SC-28 |
| USA Vermont Act 171 2018 | 2447(c)(6) |
EMEA (10)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | op.acc.6 mp.eq.3 mp.eq.4 |
| EMEA Spain Royal Decree 311 2022 | Article 23 |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 11.2(f) Article 35.1(b) |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2024 | 2411 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L1 2024 | 2411 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L2 2024 | 2411 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L3 2024 | 2411 |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 | 3.4.4-36.d |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 2-6 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 2-3-1-2 |
APAC (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC India RBI Digital Payments 2021 | 71.a |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 6.2.1 6.2.1.1 6.2.1.2 6.2.1.3 6.2.1.4 6.2.1.5 6.2.1.6 6.2.1.7 6.2.1.8 6.2.1.9 6.2.1.10 6.2.1.11 6.2.1.12 6.2.1.13 6.2.1.14 6.2.1.15 6.2.1.16 6.2.1.17 6.2.1.21 6.2.1.22 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | A2-C12 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF Microsmall 2023 | HMS09 HMS12 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 11.1.3 11.1.4 11.1.5 |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Argentina Reg 132 2018 | E.1.2-5 |
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
Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Endpoint security management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Endpoint devices containing sensitive/regulated data use a cryptographic mechanism to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information at rest (e.g., full drive encryption).
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with END 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 END domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Endpoint security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Endpoint security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint 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 END 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 protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of endpoint devices.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Endpoint Security (END) 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
Endpoint Security (END) 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
- END-03_A01 the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive / regulated data at rest is protected.
- END-03_A02 information at rest requiring protection is defined.
Evidence Requirements
- E-END-01 Endpoint Security Tools
-
Documented evidence of endpoint security tools employed by the organization to ensure secure, compliant and resilient Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., antimalware, FIM, etc.).
Endpoint Security
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
- IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
- Configuration Management (CM) program
- Change control program
Small
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
- IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
- Configuration Management (CM) program
- Change control program
Medium
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
- IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
- Configuration Management (CM) program
- Change control program
Large
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
- IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
- Configuration Management (CM) program
- Change control program
Enterprise
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
- IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
- Configuration Management (CM) program
- Change control program