NET-18: DNS & Content Filtering
Mechanisms exist to force Internet-bound network traffic through a proxy device (e.g., Policy Enforcement Point (PEP)) for URL content filtering and DNS filtering to limit a user's ability to connect to dangerous or prohibited Internet sites.
Control Question: Does the organization force Internet-bound network traffic through a proxy device (e.g., Policy Enforcement Point (PEP)) for URL content filtering and DNS filtering to limit a user's ability to connect to dangerous or prohibited Internet sites?
General (25)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| CIS CSC 8.1 | 9 9.2 9.3 13.10 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG1 | 9.2 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 | 9.2 9.3 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 | 9.2 9.3 13.10 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | SC-07(08) |
| GovRAMP High | SC-07(08) |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 5.14 8.23 |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.1 | TS-2.10 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SC-7(8) SC-18(3) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (high) | SC-7(8) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | SC-7(8) SC-18(3) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | SC-7(8) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | SC-7(8) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) | SC-18(3) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | SC-7(8) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | SC-7(8) |
| NIST 800-171 R2 (source) | 3.1.3 |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.14.06.c |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | DE.CM-03 |
| SWIFT CSF 2023 | 1.4 |
| SCF CORE Fundamentals | NET-18 |
| SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) | NET-18 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational | NET-18 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure | NET-18 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats | NET-18 |
US (19)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CISA CPG 2022 | 2.M |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 2 (source) | AC.L2-3.1.3 |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 3 (source) | AC.L2-3.1.3 |
| US CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SC-7(8) |
| US DHS CISA TIC 3.0 | 3.PEP.EM.MLPRO 3.PEP.EM.LCTPR 3.PEP.EM.CFILT 3.PEP.WE.CFILT 3.PEP.WE.DRESF 3.PEP.WE.DCFIL 3.PEP.WE.DREPF 3.PEP.WE.MCFIL 3.PEP.DO.DNSIN 3.PEP.DO.PDSER 3.PEP.SE.MCFIL |
| US FedRAMP R4 | SC-7(8) |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | SC-7(8) |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | SC-7(8) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | SC-7(8) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) | SC-7(8) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | SC-7(8) |
| US HIPAA HICP Small Practice | 8.S.A |
| US HIPAA HICP Medium Practice | 6.M.D |
| US HIPAA HICP Large Practice | 6.M.D 6.L.B |
| US IRS 1075 | SC-7(8) |
| US NSTC NSPM-33 | 6.8 |
| US TSA / DHS 1580/82-2022-01 | III.D.1.b III.D.1.c III.D.1.e III.D.2.a |
| US - NY DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.14(a)(2) |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | SC-7(8) |
EMEA (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex | 6.7.2(l) |
| EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 | 9.14 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 | 2-5-3-3 2-5-3-8 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 | TPC-57 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 | 2411 |
APAC (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2024 | ISM-0267 ISM-0649 ISM-0659 ISM-0958 ISM-0961 ISM-0963 ISM-1171 ISM-1234 ISM-1236 ISM-1237 ISM-1275 ISM-1287 ISM-1293 ISM-1502 ISM-1524 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 | 9.3.6.C.01 14.3.6.C.01 14.3.6.C.02 14.3.6.C.03 14.3.10.C.01 14.3.10.C.02 14.3.10.C.03 14.3.10.C.04 14.3.11.C.01 14.3.11.C.02 14.3.12.C.01 20.3.4.C.01 20.3.4.C.02 20.3.5.C.01 20.3.5.C.02 20.3.6.C.01 20.3.7.C.01 20.3.7.C.02 20.3.8.C.01 20.3.9.C.01 20.3.10.C.01 20.3.11.C.01 20.3.11.C.02 20.3.11.C.03 20.3.12.C.01 20.3.12.C.02 20.3.13.C.01 20.3.13.C.02 20.3.14.C.01 20.3.15.C.01 20.3.15.C.02 20.3.16.C.01 |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 | 03.14.06.C |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to force Internet-bound network traffic through a proxy device (e.g., Policy Enforcement Point (PEP)) for URL content filtering and DNS filtering to limit a user's ability to connect to dangerous or prohibited Internet sites.
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 force Internet-bound network traffic through a proxy device for URL content filtering to limit a user's ability to connect to prohibited content.
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
Network Security (NET) efforts are “world-class” capabilities that leverage predictive analysis (e.g., machine learning, AI, etc.). In addition to CMM Level 4 criteria, CMM Level 5 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions.
- Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
Assessment Objectives
- NET-18_A01 Internet-bound network traffic is routed through a proxy device or service for URL content filtering and DNS filtering to limit a user's ability to connect to dangerous or prohibited Internet sites.
Evidence Requirements
- E-NET-01 Content / DNS Filtering
-
Documented evidence of the methods that content / DNS filtering is implemented to prevent Internet traffic from prohibited content and/or hostile web sites.
Network Security
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)