Skip to main content

NET-18.4: Protocol Compliance Enforcement

NET 5 — Medium Protect

Automated mechanisms exist to ensure network traffic complies with Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) protocol specifications.

Control Question: Does the organization use automated mechanisms to ensure network traffic complies with Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) protocol specifications?

General (2)
Framework Mapping Values
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure NET-18.4
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats NET-18.4
US (1)
Framework Mapping Values
US DHS CISA TIC 3.0 3.PEP.WE.PCENF 3.PEP.SE.PCENF

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of an automated capability to ensure network traffic complies with Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) protocol specifications.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to ensure network traffic complies with Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) protocol specifications.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

C|P-CMM2 is N/A, since a well-defined process is required to ensure network traffic complies with Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) protocol specifications.

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 ensure network traffic complies with Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) protocol specifications.

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 ensure network traffic complies with Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) protocol specifications.

Assessment Objectives

  1. NET-18.4_A01 technologies are configured block/drop network traffic that does not comply with Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) protocol specifications.

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.