IAC-14.2: Protection of Authenticators
Mechanisms exist to protect authenticators commensurate with the sensitivity of the information to which use of the authenticator permits access.
Renumbered: Formerly IAC-10.5 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization protect authenticators commensurate with the sensitivity of the information to which use of the authenticator permits access?
General (29)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | IAM-15 |
| GovRAMP | IA-05(06) |
| GovRAMP Moderate | IA-05(06) |
| GovRAMP High | IA-05(06) |
| IEC 62443-4-2 2019 | CR 1.5(d) |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 5.17 |
| ISO 27017 2015 | 9.2.4 9.3.1 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 5.17 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | IA-5(6) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | IA-05(06) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | IA-05(06) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | IA-05(06) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | IA-05(06) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | IA-05(06) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | IA-05(06) |
| NIST 800-171 R2 (source) | 3.5.10 |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.05.07.c 03.05.07.d 03.05.12.f |
| NIST 800-171A (source) | 3.5.10[a] 3.5.10[b] |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.05.07.c A.03.05.07.d A.03.05.12.f[01] A.03.05.12.f[02] |
| NIST 800-172 R3 | 03.05.02E |
| NIST 800-172A R3 | DS-A.03.05.02E.b |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 8.3.11 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) | 8.3.11 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) | 8.3.11 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 8.3.11 |
| SPARTA 4.0 | CM0035 |
| SWIFT CSF 2025 | 5.4 |
| TISAX ISA 6.0.3 | 4.1.3 |
| UL 2900-2-2 2016 | 8.10 8.11 |
US (10)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal DHS CISA TIC 3.0 | 3.PEP.ID.SMANA |
| USA Federal CMMC 2.0 Level 2 | IAL2.-3.5.10 |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | IA-5(6) |
| USA Federal 21 CFR Part 11 2025 | 11.300(d) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | IA-05(06) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | IA-05(06) |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | IA-5(CE-6) |
| USA Massachusetts 201 CMR 17.00 2008 | 17.04(1)(c) |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | IA-05 (06) |
| USA Vermont Act 171 2018 | 2447(c)(1)(A)(iii) |
EMEA (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | IAM-08.04B.2 IAM-08.04B.5 IAM-09.01B IAM-09.02B |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 11.6.2(b) |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 2-2-1-6 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 2022 | VII.A.TPC-3 |
APAC (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia Essential 8 2024 | ISM-1686 |
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-0418 ISM-1402 ISM-1590 ISM-1597 ISM-1686 ISM-1749 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 9.3 9.3.1 9.3.1.1 9.3.1.2 9.3.1.3 9.3.1.5 9.3.1.6 9.3.1.7 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 16.1.34.C.02 16.1.36.C.01 16.1.37.C.01 16.1.38.C.01 |
| APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 | 5.9.2(b) |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.05.07.C 03.05.07.D 03.05.12.F |
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements. ▪ Password managers are not governed.
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 protect authenticators commensurate with the sensitivity of the information to which use of the authenticator permits access.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Assessment Objectives
- IAC-14.2_A01 authenticators are protected commensurate with the security category of the information to which use of the authenticator permits access.
- IAC-14.2_A02 authenticator content is protected from unauthorized disclosure.
- IAC-14.2_A03 authenticator content is protected from unauthorized modification.
- IAC-14.2_A04 passwords are stored in a cryptographically protected form.
- IAC-14.2_A05 passwords are cryptographically protected in transit.
- IAC-14.2_A06 passwords are only transmitted over cryptographically protected channels.
Evidence Requirements
- E-IAC-17 Authenticator Configuration Settings
-
Documented evidence of authenticator management settings (e.g., password complexity, default authenticator changes, account lockout, protection of authenticators).
Identity & Access Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Store passwords in a password manager
- Never share passwords
Small
- Password manager for credential storage
- Policy for authenticator protection
Medium
- Formal authenticator protection policy
- Password manager deployment
- Hardware token protection
Large
- Enterprise password management (e.g., CyberArk, 1Password)
- Hardware token management
- PKI for certificate protection
Enterprise
- Enterprise credential management platform (e.g., CyberArk, Thales)
- HSM for cryptographic authenticator protection
- Hardware token lifecycle management