END-03: Prohibit Installation Without Privileged Status
Automated mechanisms exist to prohibit software installations without explicitly assigned privileged status.
Control Question: Does the organization use automated mechanisms to prohibit software installations without explicitly assigned privileged status?
General (31)
US (21)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CERT RMM 1.2 | AM:SG1.SP1 COMP:SG3.SP2 MON:SG2.SP3 |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 2 (source) | CM.L2-3.4.9 |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 3 (source) | CM.L2-3.4.9 |
| US CMS MARS-E 2.0 | CM-11 |
| US FedRAMP R4 | CM-11 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (low) | CM-11 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | CM-11 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | CM-11 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (LI-SaaS) | CM-11 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | CM-11 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (low) (source) | CM-11 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) | CM-11 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | CM-11 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) (source) | CM-11 |
| US HIPAA HICP Small Practice | 2.S.A |
| US HIPAA HICP Medium Practice | 2.M.A |
| US HIPAA HICP Large Practice | 2.M.A |
| US IRS 1075 | CM-11 |
| US NSTC NSPM-33 | 6.10 |
| US TSA / DHS 1580/82-2022-01 | III.D.1.d |
| US - TX DIR Control Standards 2.0 | CM-11 |
EMEA (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 | 6.3 |
| EMEA UK Cyber Essentials | 3 |
APAC (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 12.5.1 12.5.1.1.PB 12.6.2 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to prohibit software installations without explicitly assigned privileged status.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
Endpoint Security (END) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Asset management is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
- IT/cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments, including the implementation of appropriate cybersecurity and data protection controls.
- Anti-malware technologies are decentralized but are deployed on all technology assets that can run Anti-malware software.
- Data management is decentralized.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Endpoint Security (END) efforts are requirements-driven and governed at a local/regional level, but are not consistent across the organization. CMM Level 2 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Endpoint security management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
- IT/cybersecurity personnel identify cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for endpoint security management.
- Anti-malware technologies are decentralized but are deployed on all technology assets that can run anti-malware software.
- Physical controls, administrative processes and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
- Technologies are configured to protect data with the strength and integrity commensurate with the classification or sensitivity of the information and mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides), including cryptographic protections for sensitive/regulated data.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Endpoint Security (END) 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:
- An Identity & Access Management (IAM) function, or similar function, centrally manages permissions and implements “least privileges” practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
- An IT Asset Management (ITAM) function, or similar function, categorizes endpoint devices according to the data the asset stores, transmits and/ or processes and applies the appropriate technology controls to protect the asset and data that conform to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides).
- A Security Operations Center (SOC), or similar function, centrally manages anti-malware and anti-phishing technologies, in accordance with industry-recognized practices for Prevention, Detection & Response (PDR) activities.
- A Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM), or similar automated tool, is tuned to detect and respond to anomalous behavior that could indicate account compromise or other malicious activities.
- The Human Resources (HR) department ensures that every user accessing a system that processes, stores, or transmits sensitive/regulated data is cleared and regularly trained in proper data handling practices.
- Unauthorized configuration changes are responded to in accordance with an Incident Response Plan (IRP) to determine if the any unauthorized configuration is malicious in nature.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Endpoint Security (END) 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 prohibit software installations without explicitly assigned privileged status.
Assessment Objectives
- END-03_A01 policies governing the installation of software by users are established.
- END-03_A02 user installation of software is allowed only with explicit privileged status.
- END-03_A03 methods used to enforce software installation policies are defined.
- END-03_A04 the frequency with which to monitor compliance is defined.
- END-03_A05 software installation policies are enforced through methods.
- END-03_A06 compliance with policies is monitored frequency.
Evidence Requirements
- E-IAM-02 Defined Roles & Authorizations (RBAC)
-
Documented evidence of defined access control-specific roles (e.g., Role Based Access Control (RBAC)) that affect both logical and physical access authorizations.
Identity & Access Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
- Separation of Duties (SoD)
- Privileged Account Management (PAM)
Small
- Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
- Separation of Duties (SoD)
- Privileged Account Management (PAM)
Medium
- Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
- Separation of Duties (SoD)
- Privileged Account Management (PAM)
Large
- Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
- Separation of Duties (SoD)
- Privileged Account Management (PAM)
Enterprise
- Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
- Separation of Duties (SoD)
- Privileged Account Management (PAM)