NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 Common Control Library

NIST control statement

a. Identify the types of events that the system is capable of logging in support of the audit function: [Assignment: event types]; b. Coordinate the event logging function with other organizational entities requiring audit-related information to guide and inform the selection criteria for events to be logged; c. Specify the following event types for logging within the system: [Assignment: organization-defined event types (subset of the event types defined in [AU-2a.](#au-2_smt.a)) along with the frequency of (or situation requiring) logging for each identified event type]; d. Provide a rationale for why the event types selected for logging are deemed to be adequate to support after-the-fact investigations of incidents; and e. Review and update the event types selected for logging [Assignment: frequency].

Discussion

An event is an observable occurrence in a system. The types of events that require logging are those events that are significant and relevant to the security of systems and the privacy of individuals. Event logging also supports specific monitoring and auditing needs. Event types include password changes, failed logons or failed accesses related to systems, security or privacy attribute changes, administrative privilege usage, PIV credential usage, data action changes, query parameters, or external credential usage. In determining the set of event types that require logging, organizations consider the monitoring and auditing appropriate for each of the controls to be implemented. For completeness, event logging includes all protocols that are operational and supported by the system. To balance monitoring and auditing requirements with other system needs, event logging requires identifying the subset of event types that are logged at a given point in time. For example, organizations may determine that systems need the capability to log every file access successful and unsuccessful, but not activate that capability except for specific circumstances due to the potential burden on system performance. The types of events that organizations desire to be logged may change. Reviewing and updating the set of logged events is necessary to help ensure that the events remain relevant and continue to support the needs of the organization. Organizations consider how the types of logging events can reveal information about individuals that may give rise to privacy risk and how best to mitigate such risks. For example, there is the potential to reveal personally identifiable information in the audit trail, especially if the logging event is based on patterns or time of usage. Event logging requirements, including the need to log specific event types, may be referenced in other controls and control enhancements. These include [AC-2(4)](#ac-2.4), [AC-3(10)](#ac-3.10), [AC-6(9)](#ac-6.9), [AC-17(1)](#ac-17.1), [CM-3f](#cm-3_smt.f), [CM-5(1)](#cm-5.1), [IA-3(3)(b)](#ia-3.3_smt.b), [MA-4(1)](#ma-4.1), [MP-4(2)](#mp-4.2), [PE-3](#pe-3), [PM-21](#pm-21), [PT-7](#pt-7), [RA-8](#ra-8), [SC-7(9)](#sc-7.9), [SC-7(15)](#sc-7.15), [SI-3(8)](#si-3.8), [SI-4(22)](#si-4.22), [SI-7(8)](#si-7.8) , and [SI-10(1)](#si-10.1) . Organizations include event types that are required by applicable laws, executive orders, directives, policies, regulations, standards, and guidelines. Audit records can be generated at various levels, including at the packet level as information traverses the network. Selecting the appropriate level of event logging is an important part of a monitoring and auditing capability and can identify the root causes of problems. When defining event types, organizations consider the logging necessary to cover related event types, such as the steps in distributed, transaction-based processes and the actions that occur in service-oriented architectures.

NIST control statement

Centrally manage [Assignment: controls and related processes].

Discussion

Central management refers to organization-wide management and implementation of selected controls and processes. This includes planning, implementing, assessing, authorizing, and monitoring the organization-defined, centrally managed controls and processes. As the central management of controls is generally associated with the concept of common (inherited) controls, such management promotes and facilitates standardization of control implementations and management and the judicious use of organizational resources. Centrally managed controls and processes may also meet independence requirements for assessments in support of initial and ongoing authorizations to operate and as part of organizational continuous monitoring. Automated tools (e.g., security information and event management tools or enterprise security monitoring and management tools) can improve the accuracy, consistency, and availability of information associated with centrally managed controls and processes. Automation can also provide data aggregation and data correlation capabilities; alerting mechanisms; and dashboards to support risk-based decision-making within the organization. As part of the control selection processes, organizations determine the controls that may be suitable for central management based on resources and capabilities. It is not always possible to centrally manage every aspect of a control. In such cases, the control can be treated as a hybrid control with the control managed and implemented centrally or at the system level. The controls and control enhancements that are candidates for full or partial central management include but are not limited to: [AC-2(1)](#ac-2.1), [AC-2(2)](#ac-2.2), [AC-2(3)](#ac-2.3), [AC-2(4)](#ac-2.4), [AC-4(all)](#ac-4), [AC-17(1)](#ac-17.1), [AC-17(2)](#ac-17.2), [AC-17(3)](#ac-17.3), [AC-17(9)](#ac-17.9), [AC-18(1)](#ac-18.1), [AC-18(3)](#ac-18.3), [AC-18(4)](#ac-18.4), [AC-18(5)](#ac-18.5), [AC-19(4)](#ac-19.4), [AC-22](#ac-22), [AC-23](#ac-23), [AT-2(1)](#at-2.1), [AT-2(2)](#at-2.2), [AT-3(1)](#at-3.1), [AT-3(2)](#at-3.2), [AT-3(3)](#at-3.3), [AT-4](#at-4), [AU-3](#au-3), [AU-6(1)](#au-6.1), [AU-6(3)](#au-6.3), [AU-6(5)](#au-6.5), [AU-6(6)](#au-6.6), [AU-6(9)](#au-6.9), [AU-7(1)](#au-7.1), [AU-7(2)](#au-7.2), [AU-11](#au-11), [AU-13](#au-13), [AU-16](#au-16), [CA-2(1)](#ca-2.1), [CA-2(2)](#ca-2.2), [CA-2(3)](#ca-2.3), [CA-3(1)](#ca-3.1), [CA-3(2)](#ca-3.2), [CA-3(3)](#ca-3.3), [CA-7(1)](#ca-7.1), [CA-9](#ca-9), [CM-2(2)](#cm-2.2), [CM-3(1)](#cm-3.1), [CM-3(4)](#cm-3.4), [CM-4](#cm-4), [CM-6](#cm-6), [CM-6(1)](#cm-6.1), [CM-7(2)](#cm-7.2), [CM-7(4)](#cm-7.4), [CM-7(5)](#cm-7.5), [CM-8(all)](#cm-8), [CM-9(1)](#cm-9.1), [CM-10](#cm-10), [CM-11](#cm-11), [CP-7(all)](#cp-7), [CP-8(all)](#cp-8), [SC-43](#sc-43), [SI-2](#si-2), [SI-3](#si-3), [SI-4(all)](#si-4), [SI-7](#si-7), [SI-8](#si-8).

NIST control statement

a. Implement [Selection (one-or-more): signature-based; non-signature-based] malicious code protection mechanisms at system entry and exit points to detect and eradicate malicious code; b. Automatically update malicious code protection mechanisms as new releases are available in accordance with organizational configuration management policy and procedures; c. Configure malicious code protection mechanisms to: 1. Perform periodic scans of the system [Assignment: frequency] and real-time scans of files from external sources at [Selection (one-or-more): endpoint; network entry and exit points] as the files are downloaded, opened, or executed in accordance with organizational policy; and 2. [Selection (one-or-more): block malicious code; quarantine malicious code; take [Assignment: action] ] ; and send alert to [Assignment: personnel or roles] in response to malicious code detection; and d. Address the receipt of false positives during malicious code detection and eradication and the resulting potential impact on the availability of the system.

Discussion

System entry and exit points include firewalls, remote access servers, workstations, electronic mail servers, web servers, proxy servers, notebook computers, and mobile devices. Malicious code includes viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and spyware. Malicious code can also be encoded in various formats contained within compressed or hidden files or hidden in files using techniques such as steganography. Malicious code can be inserted into systems in a variety of ways, including by electronic mail, the world-wide web, and portable storage devices. Malicious code insertions occur through the exploitation of system vulnerabilities. A variety of technologies and methods exist to limit or eliminate the effects of malicious code. Malicious code protection mechanisms include both signature- and nonsignature-based technologies. Nonsignature-based detection mechanisms include artificial intelligence techniques that use heuristics to detect, analyze, and describe the characteristics or behavior of malicious code and to provide controls against such code for which signatures do not yet exist or for which existing signatures may not be effective. Malicious code for which active signatures do not yet exist or may be ineffective includes polymorphic malicious code (i.e., code that changes signatures when it replicates). Nonsignature-based mechanisms also include reputation-based technologies. In addition to the above technologies, pervasive configuration management, comprehensive software integrity controls, and anti-exploitation software may be effective in preventing the execution of unauthorized code. Malicious code may be present in commercial off-the-shelf software as well as custom-built software and could include logic bombs, backdoors, and other types of attacks that could affect organizational mission and business functions. In situations where malicious code cannot be detected by detection methods or technologies, organizations rely on other types of controls, including secure coding practices, configuration management and control, trusted procurement processes, and monitoring practices to ensure that software does not perform functions other than the functions intended. Organizations may determine that, in response to the detection of malicious code, different actions may be warranted. For example, organizations can define actions in response to malicious code detection during periodic scans, the detection of malicious downloads, or the detection of maliciousness when attempting to open or execute files.

NIST control statement

Withdrawn in this source release; review the official source for disposition.

NIST control statement

Withdrawn in this source release; review the official source for disposition.

NIST control statement

Withdrawn in this source release; review the official source for disposition.

NIST control statement

Update malicious code protection mechanisms only when directed by a privileged user.

Discussion

Protection mechanisms for malicious code are typically categorized as security-related software and, as such, are only updated by organizational personnel with appropriate access privileges.

NIST control statement

Withdrawn in this source release; review the official source for disposition.

NIST control statement

(a) Test malicious code protection mechanisms [Assignment: frequency] by introducing known benign code into the system; and (b) Verify that the detection of the code and the associated incident reporting occur.

Discussion

None.

NIST control statement

Withdrawn in this source release; review the official source for disposition.

NIST control statement

(a) Detect the following unauthorized operating system commands through the kernel application programming interface on [Assignment: system hardware components]: [Assignment: unauthorized operating system commands] ; and (b) [Selection (one-or-more): issue a warning; audit the command execution; prevent the execution of the command].

Discussion

Detecting unauthorized commands can be applied to critical interfaces other than kernel-based interfaces, including interfaces with virtual machines and privileged applications. Unauthorized operating system commands include commands for kernel functions from system processes that are not trusted to initiate such commands as well as commands for kernel functions that are suspicious even though commands of that type are reasonable for processes to initiate. Organizations can define the malicious commands to be detected by a combination of command types, command classes, or specific instances of commands. Organizations can also define hardware components by component type, component, component location in the network, or a combination thereof. Organizations may select different actions for different types, classes, or instances of malicious commands.

NIST control statement

Withdrawn in this source release; review the official source for disposition.

NIST control statement

(a) Employ the following tools and techniques to analyze the characteristics and behavior of malicious code: [Assignment: tools and techniques] ; and (b) Incorporate the results from malicious code analysis into organizational incident response and flaw remediation processes.

Discussion

The use of malicious code analysis tools provides organizations with a more in-depth understanding of adversary tradecraft (i.e., tactics, techniques, and procedures) and the functionality and purpose of specific instances of malicious code. Understanding the characteristics of malicious code facilitates effective organizational responses to current and future threats. Organizations can conduct malicious code analyses by employing reverse engineering techniques or by monitoring the behavior of executing code.