Skip to main content

MON-16.1: Insider Threats

MON 8 — High Detect

Mechanisms exist to monitor internal personnel activity for potential security incidents.

Control Question: Does the organization monitor internal personnel activity for potential security incidents?

General (7)
Framework Mapping Values
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) DE.CM-03
Shared Assessments SIG 2025 J.5
SPARTA CM0052
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) MON-16.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational MON-16.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure MON-16.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats MON-16.1
US (3)
Framework Mapping Values
US FFIEC D3.DC.An.A.3
US HIPAA HICP Large Practice 1.L.C
US SSA EIESR 8.0 5.6 5.7
EMEA (1)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 21.10
APAC (2)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2024 ISM-1625
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 3.5.2

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to monitor internal personnel activity for potential security incidents.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Continuous Monitoring (MON) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Generating event logs and the review of event logs is narrowly-focused to business-critical systems and/ or systems that store, processes and/ or transmit sensitive/regulated data.
  • Secure baseline configurations generate logs that contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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: o Identify cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for situational awareness management. o Configure alerts for critical or sensitive data that is stored, transmitted and processed on assets. o Use a structured process to review and analyze logs.

  • Situational awareness management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
  • Secure baseline configurations generate logs that contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
  • IT/cybersecurity personnel:
  • A log aggregator, or similar automated tool, provides an event log report generation capability to aid in detecting and assessing anomalous activities on business-critical systems.
Level 3 — Well Defined

Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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: o Governs asset management that ensures compliance with requirements for asset management. o Leverages a Configuration Management Database (CMDB), or similar tool, as the authoritative source of IT assets. o Centrally collects logs and is protected according to the manufacturer’s security guidelines to protect the integrity of the event logs with cryptographic mechanisms. o Monitors the organization for Indicators of Compromise (IoC) and provides 24x7x365 near real-time alerting capability. o Is configured to alert incident response personnel of detected suspicious events such that incident responders can look to terminate suspicious events.

  • An IT Asset Management (ITAM) function, or similar function:
  • A Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM), or similar automated tool:
  • Both inbound and outbound network traffic is monitored for unauthorized activities to identify prohibited activities and assist incident handlers with identifying potentially compromised systems.
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 monitor internal personnel activity for potential security incidents.

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 monitor internal personnel activity for potential security incidents.

Assessment Objectives

  1. MON-16.1_A01 a legal opinion regarding insider threat monitoring is obtained.
  2. MON-16.1_A02 monitoring activities for insider threats is defined.
  3. MON-16.1_A03 organization-defined mechanisms are employed to monitor internal personnel activity for potential security incidents.

Evidence Requirements

E-IRO-02 Indicators of Compromise (IOC)

Documented evidence of defined Indicators of Compromise (IOC).

Incident Response
E-MON-07 Situational Awareness

Documented evidence of the organization leveraging knowledge of event log generation to gain situational awareness of cross-domain activities (e.g., technology issues, security events, policy violations, service provider activities, remote workforce activities, physical security events, etc.).

Event Log Monitoring

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Insider Threat program
  • Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
  • Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
  • Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)

Small

  • Insider Threat program
  • Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
  • Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
  • Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
  • Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)

Medium

  • Insider Threat program
  • Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
  • Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
  • Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
  • Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
  • Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)

Large

  • Insider Threat program
  • Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
  • Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
  • Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
  • Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
  • Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)

Enterprise

  • Insider Threat program
  • Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
  • Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
  • Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
  • Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
  • Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)

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.