NET-46: Metadata
Mechanisms exist to enforce information flow controls based on metadata.
Renumbered: Formerly NET-04.5 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization enforce information flow controls based on metadata?
General (9)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | DAT-01 GVN-06 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | AC-4(6) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | AC-04(06) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | AC-04(06) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | AC-4(6) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | AC-4(6) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 | AC-4(6) |
| NIST 800-172 R3 | 03.01.13E |
| NIST 800-172A R3 | A.03.01.13E.ODP[01] |
US (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal DoD Zero Trust Execution Roadmap v1.1 | 4.4 |
| USA California CCPA 2025 | 7123(c)(4)(A) |
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
Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
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 enforce information flow controls based on metadata.
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
- NET-46_A01 metadata on which to base enforcement of information flow control is defined.
- NET-46_A02 information flow control enforcement is based on organization-defined metadata.
- NET-46_A03 secure information transfer solutions are defined.
- NET-46_A04 information flows between security domains on connected systems are identified.
- NET-46_A05 solutions are employed to control information flows between security domains on connected systems.
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Review metadata in files before sharing externally
Small
- Policy requiring metadata review/stripping before external sharing
Medium
- Metadata scrubbing tools
- Policy for metadata controls on shared files
Large
- Enterprise metadata management tools
- Automated metadata stripping for external sharing
Enterprise
- Enterprise metadata management and DLP platform
- Automated metadata classification and stripping
- DLP integration