NET-02.3: Cross Domain Solution (CDS)
Mechanisms exist to implement a Cross Domain Solution (CDS) to mitigate the specific security risks of accessing or transferring information between security domains.
Control Question: Does the organization implement a Cross Domain Solution (CDS) to mitigate the specific security risks of accessing or transferring information between security domains?
General (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| MITRE ATT&CK 10 | T1021.001, T1021.003, T1021.006, T1046, T1048, T1048.001, T1048.002, T1048.003, T1072, T1098, T1098.001, T1133, T1136, T1136.002, T1136.003, T1190, T1199, T1210, T1482, T1489, T1552.007, T1557, T1557.001, T1563, T1563.002, T1565, T1565.003 |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | SC-46 |
| NIST 800-172 | 3.1.3e |
| NIST 800-207 | NIST Tenet 4 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats | NET-02.3 |
US (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 3 (source) | AC.L3-3.1.3E |
| US TSA / DHS 1580/82-2022-01 | III.C.5 |
EMEA (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 | 2-4-1-2 |
APAC (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2024 | ISM-0597 ISM-0610 ISM-0626 ISM-0635 ISM-0670 ISM-1287 ISM-1521 ISM-1522 ISM-1523 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 | 19.2.15.C.01 19.2.16.C.01 19.2.16.C.02 19.2.17.C.01 19.2.17.C.02 19.2.18.C.01 19.2.19.C.01 19.2.19.C.02 19.2.20.C.01 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to implement a Cross Domain Solution (CDS) to mitigate the specific security risks of accessing or transferring information between security domains.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to implement a Cross Domain Solution (CDS) to mitigate the specific security risks of accessing or transferring information between security domains.
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).
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
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 implement a Cross Domain Solution (CDS) to mitigate the specific security risks of accessing or transferring information between security domains.
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 implement a Cross Domain Solution (CDS) to mitigate the specific security risks of accessing or transferring information between security domains.
Assessment Objectives
- NET-02.3_A01 a Cross Domain Solution (CDS) is implemented to mitigate the specific security risks of accessing or transferring information between security domains.