NET-15.2: Disable Wireless Networking
Mechanisms exist to disable unnecessary wireless networking capabilities that are internally embedded within system components prior to issuance to end users.
Control Question: Does the organization disable unnecessary wireless networking capabilities that are internally embedded within system components prior to issuance to end users?
General (12)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| GovRAMP High | AC-18(03) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | AC-18(3) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | AC-18(3) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | AC-18(3) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | AC-18(3) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | AC-18(3) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | AC-18(3) |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.01.16.c |
| Shared Assessments SIG 2025 | U.1.2 |
| SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) | NET-15.2 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure | NET-15.2 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats | NET-15.2 |
US (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CJIS Security Policy 5.9.3 (source) | AC-18(3) |
| US FedRAMP R4 | AC-18(3) |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | AC-18(3) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | AC-18(3) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) | AC-18(3) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | AC-18(3) |
| US IRS 1075 | AC-18(3) |
EMEA (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 | 4.24 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 2-4-1-4 |
APAC (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 | 21.1.16.C.01 21.1.16.C.02 |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 | 03.01.16.C |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to disable unnecessary wireless networking capabilities that are internally embedded within system components prior to issuance to end users.
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).
- Administrative processes and technologies disable unnecessary wireless networking capabilities.
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 disable unnecessary wireless networking capabilities that are internally embedded within system components prior to issuance to end users.
Assessment Objectives
- NET-15.2_A01 when not intended for use, wireless networking capabilities embedded within system components are disabled prior to issuance and deployment.
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Small
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Medium
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Large
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Enterprise
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)