IAC-07: Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC)
Automated mechanisms exist to enforce Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC) through policy-driven, dynamic authorizations to: (1) Enforce usage conditions for users and/or role; and (2) Support the secure sharing of information.
Renumbered: Formerly IAC-15.8 and IAC-29 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, IAC-07 was User Provisioning & De-Provisioning. That control is now IAC-04.
Control Question: Does the organization use automated mechanisms to enforce Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC) through policy-driven, dynamic authorizations to: (1) Enforce usage conditions for users and/or role; and (2) Support the secure sharing of information?
General (12)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | IAM-01 |
| GovRAMP | AC-02(11) |
| GovRAMP High | AC-02(11) |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 | TS-1.8 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | AC-2(11) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | AC-02(11) AC-03(13) AC-21(01) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | AC-02(11) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | AC-02(11) AC-03(13) AC-21(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | AC-02(11) |
| NIST 800-160 Vol2 R1 | AC-03(13) |
| NIST 800-172 R3 | 03.01.09E |
| NIST 800-172A R3 | DS-A.03.01.09E.a[01] DS-A.03.01.09E.a[02] DS-A.03.01.09E.b A.03.01.09E.ODP[01] |
US (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal DoD Zero Trust Reference Architecture 2.0 | 2.0 |
| USA Federal DoD Zero Trust Execution Roadmap v1.1 | 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.3.3 1.4.2 1.4.4 1.6 1.6.2 1.6.3 1.8 1.8.4 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.5 2.4.2 |
| USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 | II.C.15.b |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | AC-02(11) |
APAC (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia Essential 8 2024 | ISM-1647 ISM-1648 |
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-1647 ISM-1648 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 10.54(c) |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 16.1.31.C.06 |
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
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC). ▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts. ▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services. ▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 enforce Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC) for policy-driven, dynamic authorizations that supports the secure sharing of information.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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
- IAC-07_A01 the circumstances and/or usage conditions to be enforced for users and/or roles are defined.
- IAC-07_A02 the users and/or roles subject to enforcement of circumstances and/or usage conditions are defined.
- IAC-07_A03 the defined circumstances and/or usage conditions for users and/or roles are automatically enforced through Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC) policy-driven, dynamic authorizations.
- IAC-07_A04 Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC) is enforced for policy-driven, dynamic authorizations that support the secure sharing of information.
Evidence Requirements
- E-IAC-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
- Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
- Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
- AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Small
- Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
- Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
- AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Medium
- Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
- Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
- AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Large
- Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
- Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
- AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Enterprise
- Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
- Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
- AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)