Skip to main content

IAC-37: Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)

IAC 9 — Critical Protect

Automated mechanisms exist to enforce Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for: (1) Remote network access; (2) Third-party Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS); and/ or (3) Non-console access to critical TAAS that store, transmit and/or process sensitive and/or regulated data.

Renumbered: Formerly IAC-06 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization use automated mechanisms to enforce Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for: (1) Remote network access; (2) Third-party Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS); and/ or (3) Non-console access to critical TAAS that store, transmit and/or process sensitive and/or regulated data?

General (41)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC6.6-POF3
CIS CSC 8.1 6.3 6.4
CIS CSC 8.1 IG1 6.3 6.4
CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 6.3 6.4
CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 6.3 6.4
CSA CCM 4.1.0 IAM-13
CSA IoT SCF 2 CLS-11
GovRAMP IA-02(01) IA-02(02)
GovRAMP Core IA-02(01)
GovRAMP Low IA-02(01)
GovRAMP Low+ IA-02(01)
GovRAMP Moderate IA-02(01) IA-02(02)
GovRAMP High IA-02(01) IA-02(02)
IEC 62443-2-1 2024 USER 1.9
IEC 62443-3-3 2013 SR 1.1 RE 2
IEC 62443-4-2 2019 CR 1.1(2)
IMO Maritime Cyber Risk Management 3.5.3.2
MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 TS-1.6
NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) 4.D(2)(g)
NIST 800-53 R4 IA-2(11)
NIST 800-53 R5.2 IA-02(01) IA-02(02)
NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) IA-02(01) IA-02(02)
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) IA-02(01) IA-02(02)
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) IA-02(01) IA-02(02)
NIST 800-82 R3 IA-02(01) IA-02(02)
NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay IA-02(01) IA-02(02)
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay IA-02(01) IA-02(02)
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay IA-02(01) IA-02(02)
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) 3.5.3 3.7.5
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.05.03 03.07.05.b
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.05.03[01] A.03.05.03[02] A.03.07.05.b[01]
NIST 800-207 NIST Tenet 6
OWASP Top 10 2025 A07:2025
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 8.2.3 8.4 8.4.2 8.4.3 8.5.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) 8.4.2 8.4.3 8.5.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B-IP (source) 8.4.3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) 8.4.2 8.4.3 8.5.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) 8.4.2 8.4.3 8.5.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) 8.2.3 8.4.2 8.4.3 8.5.1
SCF DPMP 2026 7.1
SWIFT CSF 2025 4.2
US (27)
EMEA (13)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2026 HR-07.01B.3 OPS-16.01B IAM-01.02B.13 IAM-06.09B IAM-06.03AC IAM-08.02B IAM-08.02AS COS-05.01B PSS-05.01B PSS-05.02B
EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 Article 21.1(f)(ii) Article 33.1(e)
EMEA EU NIS2 2022 Article 21.2(j)
EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 11.3.2(a) 11.7.1
EMEA UK Cyber Essentials 3.3 4-BP4
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2024 2201 2305 2512
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L1 2024 2305 2512
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L2 2024 2201 2305 2512
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L3 2024 2201 2305 2512
EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 3.4.2-31.g
EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 2-2-1-3 2-2-1-4
EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 2-2-3-2 2-4-3-2 2-15-3-5
EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 2022 VII.A.TPC-4 VII.A.TPC-5 VII.B.TPC-37 VII.B.TPC-44 VII.B.TPC-45
APAC (11)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia IoT Code of Practice 2024 1.0
APAC Australia Essential 8 2024 ISM-0974 ISM-1173 ISM-1401 ISM-1504 ISM-1505 ISM-1679 ISM-1680 ISM-1681 ISM-1872 ISM-1873 ISM-1874 ISM-1892 ISM-1893
APAC Australia ISM June 2026 ISM-0974 ISM-1173 ISM-1401 ISM-1504 ISM-1505 ISM-1559 ISM-1560 ISM-1561 ISM-1679 ISM-1680 ISM-1681 ISM-1872 ISM-1873 ISM-1874 ISM-1892 ISM-1893 ISM-2011
APAC India RBI Digital Payments 2021 33.0 34.c 61.0
APAC India RBI PPI 2025 11.5.3.a 11.5.3.b 15.3.c 15.3.d
APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 PR.AA.S7
APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 10.55 A3-4(a) A3-6 A3-7 A3-7(a) A3-7(c) A5-A3(e) A7-D2(e)(xi) A10-B9(a)(ii)
APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 16.1.29.C.02 16.4.37.C.02 16.7.42.C.01 16.7.42.C.04 16.7.42.C.05 16.7.42.C.06 16.7.42.C.07 16.7.43.C.01 16.7.44.C.01 23.3.19.C.01 23.3.19.C.02
APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 5.7.2(b)
APAC Singapore Cyber Hygiene Practice 2019 4.6 4.6(b)
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 9.1.5
Americas (3)

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.

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. ▪ TAAS are configured to use Multi-Fact or Authentication (MFA) to authenticate network access for privileged and non-privileged accounts.

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 automatically enforce Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for: (1) Remote network access; (2) Third-party Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS); and/or (3) Non-console access to critical TAAS that store, transmit and/or process sensitive/regulated data.

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

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

  1. IAC-37_A01 multi-factor authentication for access to privileged accounts is implemented.
  2. IAC-37_A02 multi-factor authentication for access to non-privileged accounts is implemented.
  3. IAC-37_A03 system components that are known, authenticated, in a properly configured state or in a trust profile are identified.
  4. IAC-37_A04 automated or manual/procedural mechanisms to prohibit system components from connecting to organizational systems are identified.
  5. IAC-37_A05 automated or manual/procedural mechanisms are employed to prohibit system components from connecting to organizational systems unless the components are known, authenticated, in a properly configured state or in a trust profile.
  6. IAC-37_A06 multi-factor authentication is implemented in the establishment of nonlocal maintenance and diagnostic sessions.

Evidence Requirements

E-IAC-16 Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) Configuration

Documented evidence of Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) enforcement, including replay-resistant and phishing-resistant authenticators for privileged and non-privileged network access.

Identity & Access Management

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
  • Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
  • AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
  • Yubico (https://yubico.com)
  • Duo (https://duo.com)

Small

  • Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
  • Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
  • AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
  • Yubico (https://yubico.com)
  • Duo (https://duo.com)

Medium

  • Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
  • Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
  • AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
  • Yubico (https://yubico.com)
  • Duo (https://duo.com)

Large

  • Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
  • Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
  • AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
  • Yubico (https://yubico.com)
  • Duo (https://duo.com)

Enterprise

  • Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
  • Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
  • AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
  • Yubico (https://yubico.com)
  • Duo (https://duo.com)

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.