NET-02.1: Denial of Service (DoS) Protection
Automated mechanisms exist to protect against or limit the effects of denial of service attacks.
Control Question: Does the organization use automated mechanisms to protect against or limit the effects of denial of service attacks?
General (20)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | OPA-08 OPA-09 |
| GovRAMP Low | SC-05 |
| GovRAMP Low+ | SC-05 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | SC-05 |
| GovRAMP High | SC-05 |
| IEC 62443-4-2 2019 | FR 7 (11.1) CR 7.1 (11.3.1) CR 7.1 (11.3.3(1)) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SC-5 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (low) | SC-5 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) | SC-5 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (high) | SC-5 |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | SC-5 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | SC-5 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | SC-5 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | SC-5 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | SC-5 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | SC-5 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | SC-5 |
| SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) | NET-02.1 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure | NET-02.1 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats | NET-02.1 |
US (17)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SC-5 |
| US DHS CISA TIC 3.0 | 3.PEP.RE.DDSPR |
| US FedRAMP R4 | SC-5 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (low) | SC-5 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | SC-5 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | SC-5 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (LI-SaaS) | SC-5 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | SC-5 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (low) (source) | SC-5 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) | SC-5 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | SC-5 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) (source) | SC-5 |
| US HIPAA HICP Medium Practice | 6.M.B |
| US HIPAA HICP Large Practice | 6.M.A |
| US - TX DIR Control Standards 2.0 | SC-5 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 1 | SC-5 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | SC-5 |
EMEA (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 | 9.3 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 2-4-1-8 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 | TPC-92 |
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | 8.8.3 [MP.S.3] |
APAC (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2024 | ISM-1019 ISM-1431 ISM-1436 ISM-1805 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF 2022 | HMS17 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 | 18.3.18.C.01 18.3.19.C.01 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 11.2.7 |
Americas (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Bermuda BMACCC | 6.19 |
| Americas Canada CSAG | 4.3 4.4 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to protect against or limit the effects of denial of service attacks.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
Network Security (NET) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- IT personnel use an informal process to design, build and maintain secure networks for test, development, staging and production environments, including the implementation of appropriate cybersecurity and data protection controls.
- Administrative processes are used to configure boundary devices (e.g., firewalls, routers, etc.) to deny network traffic by default and allow network traffic by exception (e.g., deny all, permit by exception).
- Network monitoring is primarily reactive in nature.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Network Security (NET) 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:
- Network 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 network security management.
- IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets, data and network(s).
- Administrative processes and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
- Administrative processes are used to configure boundary devices (e.g., firewalls, routers, etc.) to deny network traffic by default and allow network traffic by exception (e.g., deny all, permit by exception).
- Network segmentation exists to implement separate network addresses (e.g., different subnets) to connect systems in different security domains (e.g., sensitive/regulated data environments).
- Technologies are configured to protect against or limit the effects of Denial of Service (DoS) attacks.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Network Security (NET) 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:
- A Technology Infrastructure team, or similar function, defines centrally-managed network security controls for implementation across the enterprise.
- Secure engineering principles are used to design and implement network security controls (e.g., industry-recognized secure practices) to enforce the concepts of least privilege and least functionality at the network level.
- IT/cybersecurity architects work with the Technology Infrastructure team to implement a “layered defense” network architecture that provides a defense-in-depth approach for redundancy and risk reduction for network-based security controls, including wired and wireless networking.
- Administrative processes and technologies configure boundary devices (e.g., firewalls, routers, etc.) to deny network traffic by default and allow network traffic by exception (e.g., deny all, permit by exception).
- Technologies automate the Access Control Lists (ACLs) and similar rulesets review process to identify security issues and/ or misconfigurations.
- Network segmentation exists to implement separate network addresses (e.g., different subnets) to connect systems in different security domains (e.g., sensitive/regulated data environments).
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Network Security (NET) efforts are metrics driven and provide sufficient management insight (based on a quantitative understanding of process capabilities) to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and identify areas for improvement. In addition to CMM Level 3 criteria, CMM Level 4 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- 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.
- Both business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes.
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 protect against or limit the effects of denial of service attacks.
Assessment Objectives
- NET-02.1_A01 types of denial-of-service events to be protected against or limited are defined.
- NET-02.1_A02 resource prioritization is designed to limit negative effects of denial-of-service events.
- NET-02.1_A03 controls to achieve the denial-of-service objective by type of denial-of-service event are defined.
- NET-02.1_A04 controls by type of denial-of-service event are employed to achieve the denial-of-service protection objective.
- NET-02.1_A05 the ability of individuals to launch denial-of-service attacks against other systems is restricted.
- NET-02.1_A06 the effects of types of denial-of-service events are organizationally-defined.
- NET-02.1_A07 capacity, bandwidth or other redundancies to limit the effects of information flooding denial-of-service attacks are managed.
- NET-02.1_A08 monitoring tools for detecting indicators of denial-of-service attacks are defined.
- NET-02.1_A09 system resources to be monitored to determine if sufficient resources exist to prevent effective denial-of-service attacks are defined.
- NET-02.1_A10 monitoring tools are employed to detect indicators of denial-of-service attacks against or launched from the system.
- NET-02.1_A11 system resources are monitored to determine if sufficient resources exist to prevent effective denial-of-service attacks.