Skip to main content

NET-20.1: Email Domain Reputation Protections

NET 1 — Low Protect

Mechanisms exist to monitor the organization's email domain’s reputation and protect the email domain’s reputation.

Control Question: Does the organization monitor its email domain’s reputation and protect the email domain’s reputation?

General (2)
Framework Mapping Values
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure NET-20.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats NET-20.1
US (1)
Framework Mapping Values
US DHS CISA TIC 3.0 3.PE P.EM.EDRPR

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to monitor its email domain’s reputation and protect the email domain’s reputation.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to monitor its email domain’s reputation and protect the email domain’s reputation.

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

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 monitor its email domain’s reputation and protect the email domain’s reputation.

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 monitor its email domain’s reputation and protect the email domain’s reputation.

Assessment Objectives

  1. NET-20.1_A01 domains associated with domain used for email purposes are identified.
  2. NET-20.1_A02 processes exist to monitor the organization's email domain’s reputation.

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.