TDA-08.4: Identification & Justification of Ports, Protocols & Services
Mechanisms exist to require developers and/or process owners to identify, document and justify the business need for the ports, protocols and other services necessary to operate their technology solutions.
Renumbered: Formerly TDA-02.1 and TDA-02.5 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization require process owners to identify, document and justify the business need for the ports, protocols and other services necessary to operate their technology solutions?
General (16)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | I&S-03 |
| GovRAMP | SA-04(09) |
| GovRAMP High | SA-04(09) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SA-4(9) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | SA-04(09) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | SA-04(09) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | SA-04(09) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | SA-04(09) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | SA-04(09) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | SA-04(09) |
| NIST 800-171 R2 (source) | NFO - SA-4(9) |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 1.2.4 1.2.5 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) | 1.2.4 1.2.5 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B-IP (source) | 1.2.5 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) | 1.2.4 1.2.5 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 1.2.4 1.2.5 |
US (8)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SA-4(9) |
| USA Federal DHS CISA SSDAF | 1.d |
| USA Federal EO 14028 | 4e(i)(D) |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | SA-4(9) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | SA-04(09) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | SA-04(09) |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | SA-4(CE-9) |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | SA-04 (09) |
EMEA (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | COS-03.05B |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 2-15-1 |
APAC (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 18.1.15.C.01 18.1.15.C.02 |
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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TDA domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Technology development & acquisition-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Secure development practices loosely conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160). ▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools). ▪ 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 TDA 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). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to require process owners to identify, document and justify the business need for the ports, protocols and other services necessary to operate their technology solutions.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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
- TDA-08.4_A01 the developer of the system, system component or system service is required to identify the functions intended for organizational use.
- TDA-08.4_A02 developers and/or process owners are required to identify the ports necessary to operate their technology solutions.
- TDA-08.4_A03 developers and/or process owners are required to identify the protocols necessary to operate their technology solutions.
- TDA-08.4_A04 developers and/or process owners are required to identify the other services necessary to operate their technology solutions.
- TDA-08.4_A05 developers and/or process owners document and justify the business need for the ports, protocols and other services necessary to operate their technology solutions.
Evidence Requirements
- E-CPL-06 Manufacturer Disclosure Statement for Medical Device Security (MDS2)
-
Documented Manufacturer Disclosure Statement for Medical Device Security (MDS2) that communicates information about medical device cybersecurity & data privacy characteristics to current device owners and potential buyers. [note MDS2 is specific to medical device manufacturers]
Compliance - E-TDA-07 Ports, Protocols & Services (PPS)
-
Documented evidence of all ports, protocols and services in use by the system, application or service.
Technology Design & Acquisition
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Defined & documented Ports, Protocols & Services (PPS) to support "least functionality" governance
Small
- Defined & documented Ports, Protocols & Services (PPS) to support "least functionality" governance
Medium
- Defined & documented Ports, Protocols & Services (PPS) to support "least functionality" governance
Large
- Defined & documented Ports, Protocols & Services (PPS) to support "least functionality" governance
Enterprise
- Defined & documented Ports, Protocols & Services (PPS) to support "least functionality" governance