Skip to main content

NET-16: Network Access Control (NAC)

NET 4 — Medium Protect

Automated mechanisms exist to employ Network Access Control (NAC), or a similar technology, which is capable of detecting unauthorized devices and disable network access to those unauthorized devices.

Renumbered: Formerly AST-02.5 in SCF 2025.4.

Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, NET-16 was Intranets. That control is now NET-23.

Control Question: Does the organization use automated mechanisms to employ Network Access Control (NAC), or a similar technology, which is capable of detecting unauthorized devices and disable network access to those unauthorized devices?

General (8)
Framework Mapping Values
CIS CSC 8.1 13.9
CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 13.9
NIST 800-53 R4 IA-3(4)
NIST 800-53 R5.2 IA-03(03) SC-07(19)
NIST 800-82 R3 IA-03(03) SC-07(19)
NIST 800-161 R1 SC-7(19)
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 SC-7(19)
NIST 800-207 NIST Tenet 6
US (4)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal DHS CISA TIC 3.0 3.UNI.INVENT
USA Federal C2M2 2.1 ARCHITECTURE-2k
USA Federal CMMC 2.0 Level 3 IA.L3-3.5.3E
USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 II.C.9.a
EMEA (2)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2026 COS-01.01AC
EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 Article 13.1(d)
APAC (3)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2026 ISM-0520 ISM-1182
APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 5.8.1(c) A.3.1(c)
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 11.2.4 11.2.5 11.5.4

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 automatically employ Network Access Control (NAC), or a similar technology, which is capable of detecting unauthorized devices and disable network access to those unauthorized devices.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Asset Management (AST) 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-16_A01 system components that are known, authenticated, in a properly configured state or in a trust profile are identified.
  2. NET-16_A02 automated or manual/procedural mechanisms to prohibit system components from connecting to organizational systems are identified.
  3. NET-16_A03 automated or manual/procedural mechanisms are employed to prohibit system components from connecting to organizational systems unless the components are known, authenticated, in a properly configured state or in a trust profile.
  4. NET-16_A04 configuration management process to be employed to handle device identification and authentication based on attestation is defined.
  5. NET-16_A05 device identification and authentication are handled based on attestation by configuration management process.

Evidence Requirements

E-NET-09 Network Access Control Points

Documented evidence of network access control points.

Network Security

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • VLAN segmentation to isolate unknown devices
  • Basic wireless network access controls

Small

  • VLAN segmentation to isolate unknown devices
  • MAC address filtering (basic NAC)
  • Wireless access point policies

Medium

  • Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) (https://cisco.com)
  • HPE Aruba Central (https://arubanetworks.com)
  • Juniper Mist Access Assurance (https://juniper.net)
  • Open-source NAC (e.g., PacketFence)

Large

  • Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) (https://cisco.com)
  • HPE Aruba Central (https://arubanetworks.com)
  • Juniper Mist Access Assurance (https://juniper.net)
  • 802.1X certificate-based authentication

Enterprise

  • Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) (https://cisco.com)
  • HPE Aruba Central (https://arubanetworks.com)
  • Juniper Mist Access Assurance (https://juniper.net)
  • Zero Trust Network Architecture (ZTNA) integration
  • 802.1X with EAP-TLS and certificate infrastructure

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.