Skip to main content

NET-14.2: Protection of Confidentiality / Integrity Using Encryption

NET 9 — Critical Protect

Cryptographic mechanisms exist to protect the confidentiality and integrity of remote access sessions (e.g., VPN).

Control Question: Are cryptographic mechanisms utilized to protect the confidentiality and integrity of remote access sessions (e.g., VPN)?

General (24)
Framework Mapping Values
CIS CSC 8.1 12.7
CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 12.7
CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 12.7
GovRAMP Core AC-17(02)
GovRAMP Low+ AC-17(02)
GovRAMP Moderate AC-17(02)
GovRAMP High AC-17(02)
NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 PR.DS-P6
NIST 800-53 R4 AC-17(2)
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) AC-17(2)
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) AC-17(2)
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) AC-17(2)
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) AC-17(2)
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) AC-17(2)
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay AC-17(2)
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay AC-17(2)
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) 3.1.13
NIST 800-171A (source) 3.1.13[a] 3.1.13[b]
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.01.12.a
NIST 800-207 NIST Tenet 2
UL 2900-1 2017 9.1
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) NET-14.2
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure NET-14.2
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats NET-14.2
US (13)
Framework Mapping Values
US CJIS Security Policy 5.9.3 (source) AC-17(2) 5.10.1.2
US CMMC 2.0 Level 2 (source) AC.L2-3.1.13
US CMMC 2.0 Level 3 (source) AC.L2-3.1.13
US CMS MARS-E 2.0 AC-17(2)
US FedRAMP R4 AC-17(2)
US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) AC-17(2)
US FedRAMP R4 (high) AC-17(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (source) AC-17(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) AC-17(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) AC-17(2)
US IRS 1075 AC-17(2)
US NERC CIP 2024 (source) CIP-005-7 2.2
US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 AC-17(2)
EMEA (2)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 9.8
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2305 2306
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.01.12.A

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to Cryptographic protect the confidentiality and integrity of remote access sessions (e.g., VPN).

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 use cryptographic mechanisms to protect the confidentiality and integrity of remote access sessions.
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 Cryptographic protect the confidentiality and integrity of remote access sessions (e.g., VPN).

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 Cryptographic protect the confidentiality and integrity of remote access sessions (e.g., VPN).

Assessment Objectives

  1. NET-14.2_A01 cryptographic mechanisms to protect the confidentiality of remote access sessions are identified.
  2. NET-14.2_A02 cryptographic mechanisms to protect the confidentiality of remote access sessions are implemented.

Technology Recommendations

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.