NET-13: Electronic Messaging
Mechanisms exist to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic messaging communications.
Control Question: Does the organization protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic messaging communications?
General (12)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC6.6 CC6.6-POF2 CC6.7 |
| IEC 62443-4-2 2019 | NDR 5.3 (15.13.1) |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 5.14 |
| ISO 27017 2015 | 13.2.3 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SC-8(3) SC-19 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) | SC-19 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (high) | SC-19 |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | SC-8(3) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) | SC-8(3) |
| NIST 800-171 R2 (source) | 3.13.14 |
| NIST 800-171A (source) | 3.13.14[a] 3.13.14[b] |
| SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) | NET-13 |
US (10)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CISA CPG 2022 | 2.M |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 2 (source) | SC.L2-3.13.14 |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 3 (source) | SC.L2-3.13.14 |
| US CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SC-19 SC-ACA-1 SC-ACA-2 |
| US FedRAMP R4 | SC-19 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | SC-19 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | SC-19 |
| US IRS 1075 | 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 |
| US NISPOM 2020 | 8-700 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | SC-19 |
EMEA (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 2-3-1 2-3-2 |
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | 8.8.1 [MP.S.1] |
APAC (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2024 | ISM-0264 ISM-0267 ISM-0269 ISM-0270 ISM-0271 ISM-0272 ISM-0490 ISM-0494 ISM-0496 ISM-0498 ISM-0565 ISM-0569 ISM-0570 ISM-0571 ISM-0572 ISM-0574 ISM-0861 ISM-0998 ISM-0999 ISM-1000 ISM-1023 ISM-1024 ISM-1026 ISM-1027 ISM-1089 ISM-1151 ISM-1183 ISM-1540 ISM-1589 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 13.2.3 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 | 15.1.7.C.01 15.1.8.C.01 15.1.8.C.02 15.1.9.C.01 15.1.10.C.01 15.1.10.C.02 15.1.10.C.03 15.1.11.C.01 15.1.11.C.02 15.1.11.C.03 15.1.12.C.01 15.1.13.C.01 15.1.14.C.01 15.1.15.C.01 15.1.16.C.01 15.1.17.C.01 15.1.18.C.01 15.1.19.C.01 15.1.19.C.02 15.1.20.C.01 15.2.25.C.01 15.2.25.C.02 15.2.26.C.01 15.2.27.C.01 15.2.28.C.01 15.2.29.C.01 15.2.30.C.01 15.2.30.C.02 15.2.30.C.03 15.2.31.C.01 15.2.31.C.02 15.2.32.C.01 15.2.32.C.02 15.2.32.C.03 15.2.33.C.01 15.2.33.C.02 15.2.33.C.03 15.2.33.C.04 16.7.33.C.01 17.6.6.C.01 17.6.7.C.01 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic messaging communications.
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 information involved in electronic messaging communications.
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 the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic messaging communications.
Assessment Objectives
- NET-13_A01 cryptographic mechanisms are implemented to protect message externals unless otherwise protected by alternative physical controls.
- NET-13_A02 alternative physical controls to protect message externals are defined.
- NET-13_A03 use of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technologies is controlled.
- NET-13_A04 use of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technologies is monitored.
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)
- Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
Small
- Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)
- Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
Medium
- Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)
- Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
Large
- Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)
- Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
Enterprise
- Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)
- Data Loss Prevention (DLP)