Skip to main content

NET-26: Remote Access

NET 10 — Critical Protect

Mechanisms exist to define, control and review organization-approved, secure remote access methods.

Renumbered: Formerly NET-14 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization define, control and review organization-approved, secure remote access methods?

General (49)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC6.6 CC6.6-POF3
CIS CSC 8.1 12.7
CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 12.7
CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 12.7
GovRAMP AC-17
GovRAMP Core AC-17
GovRAMP Low AC-17
GovRAMP Low+ AC-17
GovRAMP Moderate AC-17
GovRAMP High AC-17
IEC 62443-2-1 2024 NET 3.1 NET 3.2 NET 3.2(a) NET 3.2(b) NET 3.2(c) NET 3.2(d) NET 3.2(e) NET 3.2(f) NET 3.2(g) NET 3.2(h)
ISO 27002 2022 6.7
ISO 27018 2025 6.7
MITRE ATT&CK 16 T1020.001 T1021 T1021.001 T1021.002 T1021.003 T1021.004 T1021.005 T1021.006 T1021.008 T1037 T1037.001 T1040 T1047 T1059 T1059.001 T1059.002 T1059.003 T1059.004 T1059.005 T1059.006 T1059.007 T1059.008 T1070 T1070.001 T1070.002 T1070.008 T1114 T1114.001 T1114.002 T1114.003 T1119 T1127.002 T1133 T1137 T1137.002 T1213 T1213.001 T1213.002 T1213.005 T1219 T1505.004 T1505.005 T1530 T1537 T1543 T1547.003 T1547.004 T1547.009 T1547.012 T1547.013 T1550.001 T1552 T1552.002 T1552.004 T1552.005 T1552.007 T1557 T1557.002 T1558 T1558.002 T1558.003 T1558.004 T1563 T1563.001 T1563.002 T1565 T1565.001 T1565.002 T1567.003 T1567.004 T1602 T1602.001 T1602.002 T1609 T1610 T1612 T1613 T1619 T1647 T1651 T1659
MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 OP-2.1 TS-2.1 TS-2.9
NIST 800-53 R4 AC-17 AC-17(6)
NIST 800-53 R5.2 AC-17 AC-17(06)
NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) AC-17
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) AC-17
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) AC-17
NIST 800-82 R3 AC-17 AC-17(06)
NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay AC-17
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay AC-17
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay AC-17
NIST 800-161 R1 AC-17 AC-17(6)
NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline AC-17
NIST 800-161 R1 Flow Down AC-17
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 AC-17 AC-17(6)
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 AC-17 AC-17(6)
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) 3.1.12
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.01.12.a 03.01.12.b 03.01.12.c
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.01.12.a[01] A.03.01.12.a[02] A.03.01.12.a[04] A.03.01.12.b A.03.01.12.c[01] A.03.01.12.c[02]
NIST 800-172 R3 03.01.06E
NIST 800-172A R3 DS-A.03.01.06E
NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 PR.AC-P3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 3.4.2 7.2.5 8.2.3 8.2.7 12.8.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A (source) 12.8.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) 7.2.5 8.2.7 12.8.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B (source) 12.8.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B-IP (source) 8.2.7 12.8.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) 7.2.5 8.2.7 12.8.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C-VT (source) 12.8.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) 3.4.2 7.2.5 8.2.7 12.8.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) 3.4.2 7.2.5 8.2.3 8.2.7 12.8.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ P2PE (source) 12.8.1
Shared Assessments SIG 2025 N.5
SWIFT CSF 2025 1.5
TISAX ISA 6.0.3 2.1.4
UL 2900-2-2 2016 8.2 8.3
US (17)
EMEA (9)
APAC (8)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2026 ISM-0487 ISM-0488 ISM-0489
APAC India RBI Digital Payments 2021 73.c
APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 PR.AA.S12
APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 A5-A3
APAC New Zealand HISF Microsmall 2023 HMS13
APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 16.5.10.C.01 16.5.10.C.02 16.5.11.C.01 16.5.11.C.02 16.5.12.C.01 17.5.6.C.01 17.5.7.C.01 17.5.7.C.02 17.5.8.C.01 17.5.8.C.02 17.5.8.C.03 17.5.9.C.01 17.5.10.C.01
APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 5.1.3(c) 5.7.1 5.7.2 5.7.2(a)
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 9.3.1 9.3.2
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 03.01.12.A 03.01.12.B 03.01.12.C 03.14.08.B

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

Network Security (NET) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). 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. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.

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 define, control and review organization-approved, secure remote access methods.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Network Security (NET) 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-26_A01 usage restrictions are established for each type of allowable remote system access.
  2. NET-26_A02 types of allowable remote system access are defined.
  3. NET-26_A03 connection requirements are established for each type of allowable remote system access.
  4. NET-26_A04 each type of remote system access is authorized prior to establishing such connections.
  5. NET-26_A05 configuration requirements are established for each type of allowable remote system access.
  6. NET-26_A06 implementation guidance is established and documented for each type of remote access allowed.
  7. NET-26_A07 each type of remote access to the system is authorized prior to allowing such connections.
  8. NET-26_A08 information about remote access mechanisms is protected from unauthorized use and disclosure.
  9. NET-26_A09 remote access to the system is routed through authorized access control points.
  10. NET-26_A10 remote access to the system is routed through managed access control points.
  11. NET-26_A11 remote execution of privileged commands is authorized.
  12. NET-26_A12 remote access to security-relevant information is authorized.

Evidence Requirements

E-IAC-14 Remote Access Authorizations

Documented evidence of authorization for users to connect via remote access methods.

Identity & Access Management

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • VPN for remote access
  • Remote access policy

Small

  • VPN with MFA for remote access
  • Documented remote access policy

Medium

  • Enterprise VPN with MFA
  • Remote access policy
  • Split tunneling controls

Large

  • Enterprise VPN or ZTNA solution
  • Remote access monitoring
  • MFA enforcement

Enterprise

  • Enterprise ZTNA/SASE platform (e.g., Zscaler, Palo Alto Prisma Access)
  • VPN with MFA
  • Remote access monitoring and logging

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.