SEA-04: Process Isolation
Mechanisms exist to implement a separate execution domain for each executing process.
Control Question: Does the organization implement a separate execution domain for each executing process?
General (19)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| GovRAMP Low | SC-39 |
| GovRAMP Low+ | SC-39 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | SC-39 |
| GovRAMP High | SC-39 |
| IEC TR 60601-4-5 2021 | 5.2 - CR 2.1 |
| MITRE ATT&CK 10 | T1003, T1003.001, T1003.002, T1003.003, T1003.004, T1003.005, T1003.006, T1003.007, T1003.008, T1068, T1189, T1190, T1203, T1210, T1211, T1212, T1547.002, T1547.005, T1547.008, T1556, T1556.001, T1611 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SC-39 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (low) | SC-39 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) | SC-39 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (high) | SC-39 |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | SC-39 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | SC-39 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | SC-39 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | SC-39 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | SC-39 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | SC-39 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | SC-39 |
| NIST 800-171 R2 (source) | NFO-SC-39 |
| OWASP Top 10 2021 | A01:2021 A05:2021 |
US (16)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CERT RMM 1.2 | TM:SG2.SP2 |
| US CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SC-39 |
| US FedRAMP R4 | SC-39 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (low) | SC-39 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | SC-39 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | SC-39 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (LI-SaaS) | SC-39 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | SC-39 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (low) (source) | SC-39 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) | SC-39 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | SC-39 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) (source) | SC-39 |
| US IRS 1075 | SC-39 |
| US - TX DIR Control Standards 2.0 | SC-39 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 1 | SC-39 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | SC-39 |
EMEA (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex | 11.4.2(b) |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to implement a separate execution domain for each executing process.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 solutions.
- IT /cyber engineering governance is decentralized, with the responsibility for implementing and testing cybersecurity and data protection controls being assigned to the business process owner(s), including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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:
- Architecture/engineering management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
- A Change Advisory Board (CAB), or similar function, exists to govern changes to systems, applications and services, ensuring their stability, reliability and predictability.
- Administrative processes and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
- IT/cybersecurity personnel identify cybersecurity and data protection controls to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for architecture/engineering management.
- IT personnel implement secure engineering practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets, data and network(s).
- Technologies are configured to protect data with the strength and integrity commensurate with the classification or sensitivity of the information and mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides), including cryptographic protections for sensitive/regulated data.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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:
- IT/cybersecurity architects, or a similar function, enable the implementation a “layered defense” network architecture that enables a resilient defense-in-depth approach through the use of industry-recognized cybersecurity and data privacy practices in the specification, design, development, implementation and modification of systems and services (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides).
- IT/cybersecurity engineers, or a similar function, operationalize enterprise architecture, aligned with industry-recognized leading practices, with consideration for cybersecurity and data privacy principles, including resiliency expectations, that addresses risk to organizational operations, assets, individuals, other organizations.
- A Validated Architecture Design Review (VADR), or similar process, is used to evaluate design criteria for secure practices and conformance with requirements for applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual controls to determine if the system/application/service is designed, built and operated in a secure and resilient manner.
- A Change Advisory Board (CAB), or similar function, governs changes to systems, applications and services to ensure their stability, reliability and predictability.
- A formal Change Management (CM) program helps to ensure that no unauthorized changes are made, all changes are documented, services are not disrupted and resources are used efficiently.
- An Identity & Access Management (IAM) function, or similar function, enables the implementation of identification and access management controls for “least privileges” practices, allowing for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
- An IT Asset Management (ITAM) function, or similar function, categorizes assets according to the data the asset stores, transmits and/ or processes and applies the appropriate technology controls to protect the asset and data.
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 implement a separate execution domain for each executing process.
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 implement a separate execution domain for each executing process.
Assessment Objectives
- SEA-04_A01 a separate execution domain is maintained for each executing system process.
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)