END-16.1: Host-Based Security Function Isolation
Mechanisms exist to implement underlying software separation mechanisms to facilitate security function isolation.
Control Question: Does the organization implement underlying software separation mechanisms to facilitate security function isolation?
General (11)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| GovRAMP Low+ | SC-07(12) |
| GovRAMP Moderate | SC-07(12) |
| GovRAMP High | SC-07(12) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SC-7(12) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | SC-7(12) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) | SC-7(12) |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 2.2.3 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) | 2.2.3 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) | 2.2.3 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) | 2.2.3 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 2.2.3 |
US (9)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SC-7(12) |
| US FedRAMP R4 | SC-7(12) |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | SC-7(12) |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | SC-7(12) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | SC-7(12) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) | SC-7(12) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | SC-7(12) |
| US IRS 1075 | SC-7(12) |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | SC-7(12) |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to implement underlying software separation mechanisms to facilitate security function isolation.
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:
- Configuration management is centralized for all operating systems, applications, servers and other configurable technologies.
- Technologies are configured to protect data with the strength and integrity commensurate with the classification or sensitivity of the information and conform to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides), including test, development, staging and production environments.
- Configurations conform to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides) for test, development, staging and production environments.
- 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
See C|P-CMM3. There are no defined C|P-CMM4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to implement underlying software separation mechanisms to facilitate security function isolation.
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 implement underlying software separation mechanisms to facilitate security function isolation.
Assessment Objectives
- END-16.1_A01 host-based boundary protection mechanisms to be implemented are defined.
- END-16.1_A02 system components where host-based boundary protection mechanisms are to be implemented are defined.
- END-16.1_A03 host-based boundary protection mechanisms are implemented at system components.
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)