Skip to main content

NET-06: Network Segmentation (macrosegmentation)

NET 10 — Critical Protect

Mechanisms exist to implement network segmentation within network architectures to isolate Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) from other network resources.

Control Question: Does the organization implement network segmentation within network architectures to isolate Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) from other network resources?

General (39)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA Privacy Management Framework (PMF) S7.1-POF4
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC6.1
CSA CCM 4.1.0 I&S-06
CSA IoT SCF 2 SAP-01
GovRAMP AC-04(21)
GovRAMP Moderate AC-04(21)
GovRAMP High AC-04(21)
IEC 62443-2-1 2024 NET 1.1 NET 1.3 NET 2.2
IEC 62443-3-3 2013 SR 5.1 SR 5.1 RE 1
IEC 62443-4-2 2019 CR 5.1
IEC TR 60601-4-5 2021 5.2 - CR 5.1
IMO Maritime Cyber Risk Management 3.5.3.3
ISO 27002 2022 8.20 8.22
ISO 27017 2015 13.1.1 13.1.3
ISO 27018 2025 8.20 8.22
MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 TS-2.8 TS-2.11 TS-8.2
NIST 800-53 R4 AC-4(21)
NIST 800-53 R5.2 AC-04(21)
NIST 800-82 R3 AC-04(21)
NIST 800-160 Vol2 R1 AC-04(21)
NIST 800-161 R1 AC-4(21)
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 AC-4(21)
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) 3.13.5
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.13.01.b
NIST 800-171A (source) 3.13.5[a] 3.13.5[b]
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.13.01.b
NIST 800-172 R3 03.01.12E
NIST 800-172A R3 DS-A.03.01.12E A.03.01.12E.ODP[01]
NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 PR.AC-P5
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 1.2.1 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6 1.2.7 1.2.8 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.4.1 1.4.2 11.4.5 11.4.6 12.5.2 A1.1.4 A3.2.1 A3.2.4
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) 1.2.1 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6 1.2.7 1.2.8 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.4.1 1.4.2 11.4.5
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B-IP (source) 1.2.3 1.2.5 1.2.6 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.4.2 11.4.5
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 11.4.5
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C-VT (source) 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) 1.2.1 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6 1.2.7 1.2.8 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.4.1 1.4.2 11.4.5 12.5.2
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) 1.2.1 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6 1.2.7 1.2.8 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.4.1 1.4.2 11.4.5 11.4.6 12.5.2 A1.1.4
SPARTA 4.0 CM0038
SWIFT CSF 2025 1.1 1.4 1.5
TISAX ISA 6.0.3 5.2.7
US (19)
EMEA (15)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2026 OPS-30.01B.2 OPS-34.02B.7 IAM-07.01B IAM-07.02B COS-02.01B.1 COS-03.01B COS-06.01B COS-06.01AC COS-07.01B.2
EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 op.ext.4 op.mon.1 mp.com.1 mp.com.4
EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 Article 13.1(a)
EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 3.4.4.36(c)
EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 6.8.1 6.8.2(a) 6.8.2(b) 6.8.2(c) 6.8.2(d) 6.8.2(e) 6.8.2(f) 6.8.2(g) 6.8.2(h)
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2024 2508
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L1 2024 2508
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L2 2024 2508
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L3 2024 2508
EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 3.4.4-36.c
EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 2-4-4
EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 2-3-1-4 2-4-1-1
EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 2-5-3-1 2-5-3-2 5-1-3-1 5-1-3-2
EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 2-4-1-1 2-4-1-2 2-4-1-5
EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 2022 VII.B.TPC-40
APAC (10)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia CCM 2026 PRO-18 PRO-19
APAC Australia ISM June 2026 ISM-1181 ISM-1269 ISM-1270 ISM-1271 ISM-1577 ISM-1750
APAC India RBI Digital Payments 2021 19.0
APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 PR.AA.S2
APAC Japan ISMAP 13.1.3 13.1.3.1 13.1.3.2 13.1.3.3 13.1.3.4 13.1.3.5 13.1.3.6 13.1.3.7 13.1.3.8 13.1.3.9 13.1.3.10.P 13.1.3.11.P 13.1.3.12.P 13.1.4.P
APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 10.43 A5-A1 A10-B1(e)
APAC New Zealand HISF MLHSP 2023 HHSP55 HML55
APAC New Zealand HISF Suppliers 2023 HSUP47
APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 5.5.1 5.5.2 10.2.1 12.4.1
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 11.2.2
Americas (4)

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

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ Network segmentation exists to implement separate network addresses (e.g., different subnets) to connect TAASD in different security domains (e.g., sensitive/regulated data environments). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity architects maintain a segmented development network to ensure a secure development environment.

Level 3 — Well Defined

Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure network architecture utilizes network segmentation to isolate Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) to protect from other network resources. Mechanisms exist to implement network segmentation within network architectures to isolate Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) from other network resources.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Network Security (NET) 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. NET-06_A01 logical isolation techniques are defined.
  2. NET-06_A02 mechanisms and/or techniques used to logically separate information flows are defined.
  3. NET-06_A03 information flows are separated logically using organization-defined mechanisms and/or techniques to accomplish organization-defined required separations.
  4. NET-06_A04 publicly accessible system components are identified.
  5. NET-06_A05 subnetworks for publicly accessible system components are physically or logically separated from internal networks.
  6. NET-06_A06 physical isolation techniques and/or organization-defined logical isolation techniques are employed in organizational systems and system components.
  7. NET-06_A07 mechanisms and/or techniques used to physically separate information flows are defined.
  8. NET-06_A08 required separations by types of information are defined.
  9. NET-06_A09 information flows are separated physically using organization-defined mechanisms and/or techniques to accomplish organization-defined required separations.
  10. NET-06_A10 subnetworks are implemented for publicly accessible system components that are physically or logically separated from internal networks.

Evidence Requirements

E-DCH-04 Network Diagram - Low Level

Documented evidence of a low-level network diagram that provides a detailed, logical depiction of assets on the network(s).

Data Protection
E-NET-08 Internal Boundaries

Documented evidence of key internal boundaries.

Network Security

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Subnetting
  • Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN)

Small

  • Subnetting
  • Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN)

Medium

  • Subnetting
  • Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN)

Large

  • Subnetting
  • Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN)

Enterprise

  • Subnetting
  • Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN)

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.