Sandbox

System Characteristics

• Name: Pilot Sandbox System

• Description: A generic pilot sandbox system.

• Security Sensitivity Level: Restricted, Sensitive Normal

AS: Application Security (15)

AS-1: Input Validation

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Validate all application inputs to ensure that they match the expected type, structure, or format.

Control Recommendations

Strictly validating inputs against a comprehensive schema prevents injection attacks caused by inserting special characters or content that would cause the application to perform incorrect operations.

Risk Statement

Without input validation, there's a heightened risk of injection attacks, data manipulation, or system crashes due to unexpected input, potentially leading to unauthorised access or disruption of services.

AS-2: Parameterised Interfaces

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Use parameterised interfaces for database queries or system commands.

Control Recommendations

Parameterised interfaces such Object-Relational Mapping (ORM) libraries ensure that parameters used in database queries or system commands are properly sanitised and prevent injection attacks.

Risk Statement

Failure to use parameterised interfaces increases the vulnerability to SQL injection or command injection attacks, posing a significant risk of unauthorised access, data manipulation, or even potential system compromise.

AS-3: Output Sanitisation

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Sanitise all application outputs that will be used to render a HTML document.

Control Recommendations

Any application outputs that are returned to the requester and used to render a HTML document can lead to cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks if they contain special characters that change the rendering of the HTML document by the browser.

Risk Statement

Lack of sanitisation for application outputs used in rendering HTML documents exposes the system to the risk of cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks, allowing malicious code execution in browsers.

AS-4: Authentication Mechanism Rate-Limiting

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Apply rate-limiting on all authentication mechanisms to deter brute-force attacks.

Control Recommendations

Consider rate-limiting to a maximum of 3 consecutive failed authentication attempts within 15 minutes or other reasonable rate limits. Time delays between log-on attempts reduce the risk of successful brute-forcing attacks. Bot mitigation tools such as CAPTCHA can further reduce this risk.

Risk Statement

Without rate-limiting, there's an increased risk of unauthorised access as attackers may exploit weak credentials through repeated login attempts.

AS-5: Password Requirements

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Where SSO or passwordless is not supported, verify that [as-5_prm_3] passwords are at least [as-5_prm_1] characters in length and [as-5_prm_2].

Control Recommendations

Latest NIST SP 800-63B guidelines found that password length is a primary factor in determining the strength of a password while composition and complexity rules provide marginal security benefits.

Risk Statement

Short or commonly used passwords increase the vulnerability to unauthorised access, potentially leading to compromised accounts and unauthorised activities on the system.

Parameters

AS-6: Password Salting and Hashing

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Store passwords as salted hashes using a password hashing scheme that is resistant to offline attacks such as those described in NIST SP 800-63b. The salt should be:

• Generated using a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator in accordance with industry standards;

• At least 32 bits long; and

• Randomly generated for each account.

Control Recommendations

Refer to NIST SP 800-90Ar1 for suitable pseudo-random number generators. Refer to NIST SP 800-63b Memorized Secret Verifiers section for suitable hashing schemes, including Argon2, scrypt, and PBKDF2. For application source code, use a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator function instead of an insecure one, such as crypto.randomBytes instead of Math.random in Node.js and java.security.SecureRandom.nextBytes instead of java.util.Random in Java.

Risk Statement

Without salting and hashing, in case of a data breach, exposed passwords can be easily extracted, leading to potential compromise of accounts and sensitive information.

AS-7: Access Control Check Enforcement

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Perform access control checks on all authenticated requests.

Control Recommendations

Utilise authorisation filters or middleware to force all authenticated requests to undergo access control checks.

Risk Statement

Failure to perform access control checks on authenticated requests increases the risk of unauthorised access to sensitive data or functionalities, potentially leading to data breaches and misuse of system resources.

AS-8: Secrets Management

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Securely store secrets in an appropriate secrets management solution with access control enforcement, encryption, and monitoring.

Control Recommendations

Secrets include API keys, access keys, and other static credentials. Do not store secrets unencrypted in source code or configuration files. Store secrets in cloud-native solutions like AWS Secrets Manager and Azure Key Vault or cloud-agnostic solutions like HashiCorp Vault and CyberArk Conjur. For SaaS or platforms, ensure that secrets are stored in an appropriate solution. For example, use GitHub Actions secrets instead of variables.

Risk Statement

Exposure of sensitive information and unauthorised access to system credentials may occur if application secrets are stored insecurely or hard-coded in source code.

AS-9: Content Security Policy (CSP)

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Set minimally permissive CSP response headers to mitigate cross-site scripting attacks.

Control Recommendations

Utilise the relevant fetch directives such as default-src, script-src, style-src, connect-src, img-src, media-src and object-src to prevent loading of scripts from malicious sources. Refer to the OWASP Secure Headers Project Best Practices for recommended header values.

Risk Statement

Without minimally permissive Content Security Policy (CSP) headers, the risk of cross-site scripting attacks, leading to unauthorised script execution and potential data theft, is increased.

AS-10: HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Set HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) response headers with a maximum age value of at least 1 year (31536000 seconds) to mitigate protocol downgrade attacks.

Control Recommendations

Refer to the OWASP Secure Headers Project Best Practices for recommended header values.

Risk Statement

Failure to implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with a sufficient maximum age may expose the system to protocol downgrade attacks, compromising the security of communication channels.

AS-11: Session Management

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Require [as-11_prm_2] to re-authenticate after their session exceeds [as-11_prm_1] hour(s) or terminate the session.

Control Recommendations

NIST SP 800-63B recommends re-authentication once per 30 days for Authenticator Assurance Level 1, 12 hours or 30 minutes inactivity for Authenticator Assurance Level 2, and 12 hours or 15 minutes inactivity for Authenticator Assurance Level 3. In addition to time period, system can consider re-authentication when roles, authenticators or credentials change or when the execution of privileged functions occurs.

Risk Statement

Not re-authenticating regularly and at suitable checkpoints could allow someone who has access to the account to carry out unauthorised actions.

Parameters

AS-12: Malware Scanning of Uploaded Files

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Scan file uploads for malware before further processing by the system.

Control Recommendations

Consider uploading the files to temporary storage for malware scanning on ephemeral compute like serverless functions before moving safe files to another storage for further processing or unsafe files to quarantine storage.

Risk Statement

Without scanning uploaded files for malware, there's an increased risk of exploits or infection for consumers of the files.

AS-13: Exposure of Internal System Details

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Prevent the unnecessary disclosure of internal system details to Public Users.

Control Recommendations

Ensure all system messages and notifications are informative yet secure. These messages should be contextually appropriate, providing relevant information without exposing internal system details such as debug information, stack traces, or software versioning.

Risk Statement

Disclosure of internal system details or debug stack traces can expose vulnerabilities, software versions, and system architecture, potentially leading to targeted attacks, exploitation of known vulnerabilities, and unauthorised access to sensitive systems or data.

AS-14: Secure Cryptographic Libraries

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Use reputable and secure cryptographic libraries and functions to handle cryptographic operations.

Control Recommendations

Follow the OWASP Cryptographic Storage Cheat Sheet for best practices in securely implementing cryptographic operations. Regularly update libraries and prefer widely recognised ones such as OpenSSL. Consider using libraries that are FIPS 140-2 or FIPS 140-3 compliant for enhanced security assurance.

Risk Statement

Using insecure cryptographic libraries and functions can expose applications to significant security risks, such as data breaches and unauthorised access, compromising sensitive information.

AS-15: Password Change

• Group: Application Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Enforce password change upon suspected account compromise.

Control Recommendations

Implement mechanisms to detect signs of account compromise, such as unusual login activity or multiple failed login attempts. Notify users promptly to change their passwords and provide guidance on creating strong, unique passwords. Consider integrating multi-factor authentication to enhance security.

Risk Statement

Failure to enforce password changes upon suspected account compromise increases the risk of prolonged unauthorised access, leading to potential data breaches and exploitation of systems.

SC: Software Supply Chain (9)

SC-1: Code Repository

• Group: Software Supply Chain

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Manage the codebase in a central code repository with version control.

Control Recommendations

Use common internal platforms that provide Git repository services.

Risk Statement

Absence of centralised code repository and version control increases the risk of code inconsistencies, loss of code history, and difficulties in collaboration, potentially leading to errors and security vulnerabilities.

SC-2: Commit Signing

• Group: Software Supply Chain

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Configure the code repository to reject unsigned commits.

Control Recommendations

Use GitLab's push rules, GitHub's branch protection rules or similar code repository controls to reject unsigned commits on push.

Risk Statement

Allowing unsigned commits in the code repository introduces the risk of unauthorised or malicious code changes, compromising the integrity and security of the software development process.

SC-3: Peer Review

• Group: Software Supply Chain

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Require peer review and approval by a designated reviewer before merging into the default branch.

Control Recommendations

Use GitLab's protected branch and merge request settings, GitHub's branch protection settings or similar code repository controls to enforce this.

Risk Statement

Without peer review and approval before merging, there is an increased risk of introducing undetected coding errors, security vulnerabilities, and maintaining codebase consistency may become challenging.

SC-4: Dependency Manifest Version Pinning

• Group: Software Supply Chain

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Pin direct and transitive dependency versions in the application's dependency manifest.

Control Recommendations

Dependency manifests such as package-lock.json for npm and Pipfile.lock for pipenv allow you to pin dependency versions.

Risk Statement

Failure to pin direct and transitive dependency versions in the application's manifest may lead to version drift, introducing compatibility issues, security vulnerabilities, and unpredictability in the software environment.

SC-5: Build and Release Process

• Group: Software Supply Chain

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Use a consistent build and release process that generates a record of how the release artefact was built and deployed.

Control Recommendations

Consider automated build and deploy tools such as CI/CD Pipelines, Infrastructure as Code (IaC) and other scripts, which allow for signing and validation of build artefacts. If automation is not possible, develop and implement release management processes.

Risk Statement

Inconsistent and unmanaged releases may lead to configuration drift, increased likelihood of errors, and unapproved changes to releases.

SC-6: Dependency Installation during Deployment

• Group: Software Supply Chain

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Only install pinned versions in the manifest when installing dependencies during deployment.

Control Recommendations

Use package manager commands such as npm ci for npm and pipenv sync for pipenv that ensure only versions specified in the manifest are installed rather than the latest version.

Risk Statement

Failure to install only pinned versions of dependencies during deployment increases the risk of introducing unforeseen changes, compatibility issues, and potential security vulnerabilities into the deployed environment.

SC-7: Software Artefact Signing

• Group: Software Supply Chain

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Sign software artefacts such as code and container images using a trusted source during build.

Control Recommendations

Use tools or services like Cosign or AWS Signer to sign and verify code.

Risk Statement

Unsigned code and container images pose a risk of tampering, impersonation, and the injection of malicious code during the build process, compromising the integrity and security of the deployed software.

SC-8: Software Artefact Signature Verification

• Group: Software Supply Chain

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Verify the signatures of code and artefacts before deployment or runtime.

Control Recommendations

Implement a signature verification step such as a pipeline stage or Kubernetes Admission Controller.

Risk Statement

Without verifying the signatures of code and artefacts before deployment or runtime, there's an increased risk of deploying tampered or malicious software, compromising the integrity and security of the system.

SC-9: Internal Code Collaboration and Sharing

• Group: Software Supply Chain

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Share source code internally to enhance code quality, accelerate innovation, and improve problem-solving efficiency.

Control Recommendations

Adopt InnerSource practices for internal collaboration, utilising Git platforms to manage and share code repositories internally. Source code should be evaluated for suitability for InnerSourcing, such as the use of confidential algorithms or embedded sensitive data. The InnerSource guidelines published in the Singapore Government Developer Portal provide a useful framework for code sharing.

Risk Statement

Restricting code repositories to closed source can result in duplicated efforts, hinder collaborative learning, and lead to missed bugs or vulnerabilities.

ST: Security Testing (5)

ST-1: Vulnerability Assessment

• Group: Security Testing

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Run regular [st-1_prm_1] vulnerability assessment scans for eligible hosts at least every [st-1_prm_2] day(s).

Control Recommendations

Select agent-based or network-based scans as necessary. Implement authenticated scans where possible for greater coverage. Use scanners such as Amazon Inspector or Microsoft Defender for Cloud for continuous scanning of cloud systems. For on-premises systems or systems that require periodic scans, subscribe to Vulnerability Management System (VMS). For SaaS, refer to past vulnerability scanning reports done by the SaaS provider, if any.

Risk Statement

Without regular vulnerability assessment scans, hosts remain exposed to undetected security vulnerabilities or misconfigurations, increasing the risk of exploitation and unauthorised access to critical systems.

Parameters

ST-2: Cloud Security Posture Management

• Group: Security Testing

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Set up cloud security posture management that performs continuous configuration scans on cloud assets.

Control Recommendations

Use cloud security posture management tools such as AWS Security Hub, Azure Defender for Cloud, and Google Security Command Center.

Risk Statement

Lack of continuous configuration scans through cloud security posture management increases the risk of misconfigurations in cloud assets, leading to security vulnerabilities, data breaches, and unauthorised access.

ST-3: Public Vulnerability Disclosure Programme

• Group: Security Testing

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Establish a public reporting channel for disclosing vulnerabilities in public-facing systems via [st-3_prm_1].

Control Recommendations

Use the security.txt standard or add a link to the vulnerability reporting channel on all pages, such as in the footer.

Risk Statement

Lack of a reporting channel for vulnerabilities increases the risk of undetected and unmitigated vulnerabilities.

Parameters

ST-4: Security Testing Programme

• Group: Security Testing

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Conduct and document a [st-4_prm_1] by internal teams or independent external parties every [st-4_prm_2] day(s).

Control Recommendations

Refer to the WOG Security Testing Guidelines for recommendations on the conduct of security testing engagements. For systems that are permitted to use Government Bug Bounty Programme as an alternative, obtain a passing rating based on the Agency Readiness Scorecard. For SaaS, refer to past penetration testing reports done by the SaaS provider, if any.

Risk Statement

Without undergoing security testing, there's an increased risk of undetected security weaknesses, leaving the application susceptible to exploitation, data breaches, and unauthorised access.

Parameters

ST-5: Vulnerability Management

• Group: Security Testing

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Triage, prioritise and then remediate or risk accept vulnerabilities that materially impact security within the following timeframe based on severity:

• Critical: [st-5_prm_1] day(s)

• High: [st-5_prm_2] day(s)

• Medium: [st-5_prm_3] day(s)

• Low: [st-5_prm_4] day(s)

Control Recommendations

Vulnerabilities that materially impact security include vulnerabilities that have a high likelihood of exploitability, or are known to be exploited. Refer to resources such as the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog to prioritise vulnerabilities that should be remediated. Seek approval from the appropriate approving authority for risk acceptance. Document the actions taken.

Risk Statement

Failure to promptly remediate vulnerabilities increases the risk of potential exploits, security breaches, and prolonged exposure to known vulnerabilities in the system.

Parameters

NS: Network Security (8)

NS-1: Network and System Component Segmentation

• Group: Network Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Segment and isolate system components into separate physical and logical networks or environments based on their security requirements and risk levels.

Control Recommendations

Deploy security controls such as firewalls, security groups, and API gateways to establish and maintain segmentation. In cloud environments, implement a tiered network architecture where internet-facing services are restricted to designated public segments, while sensitive backend systems remain in private segments with controlled outbound access. Consider micro-segmentation for granular control based on workload sensitivity.

Risk Statement

Failure to segregate private and public resources within distinct subnets in a virtual network increases the risk of unauthorised access to sensitive data, as private resources may be exposed to the public internet, compromising the overall security of the infrastructure.

NS-2: Access Restrictions on CSP Resources Outside Virtual Network

• Group: Network Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Restrict access to CSP resources outside of a virtual network (e.g., Lambda, DynamoDb, API Gateways, S3, CloudFront) using access controls or application layer authorisation.

Control Recommendations

Apply access restrictions appropriate to the resource type. Access through interface VPC endpoints is only required if the client is hosted in a private subnet. For example:

• Restrict access to DynamoDB with IAM policies.

• Restrict access to API Gateway with Lambda authorizers or authorisation middlewares at the application layer. If the API Gateway is exposed to private subnets, create a private API.

• Restrict access to S3 Buckets with IAM policies and block public access from the internet.

Risk Statement

Lack of access restrictions raises the risk of unauthorised access, data exposure, and potential misuse of critical services, compromising the overall security posture.

NS-3: Deny by Default - Allow by Exception

• Group: Network Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Deny network communications traffic by default and allow network communications traffic by exception at managed interfaces.

Control Recommendations

Configure network access control lists and security groups to deny all traffic by default. Only allow traffic to and from specific hosts and ports by exception. For egress traffic to the internet, consider whitelisting domains at the application layer or DNS resolver rather than just hosts or ports at the transport layer.

Risk Statement

Without network access controls, there's an increased risk of unauthorised or malicious network access, leading to potential security breaches and compromise of system integrity.

NS-4: Inter-Private Network Connectivity

• Group: Network Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Route network traffic between private networks without going through the internet.

Control Recommendations

Use CSP Private endpoint services (e.g., AWS PrivateLink with VPC endpoints) when you want to allow one or more consumer VPCs unidirectional access to a specific service or set of instances in the service provider VPC. Otherwise, use VPC peering and Transit Gateway when you want to enable layer-3 IP connectivity between VPCs. Refer to the Multi-VPC AWS Network Infrastructure Whitepaper for further guidance.

Risk Statement

When routing through the internet, there's an increased risk of man-in-the-middle and spoofing attacks. Allowing bidirectional access between networks without fine-grained access controls increases the risk of unauthorised access, potential data exfiltration, and compromise of network security compared to unidirectional access to specific resources.

NS-5: Network and Application Layer Filtering

• Group: Network Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Filter direct traffic from the internet to protect against network and application layer attacks.

Control Recommendations

Deploy the following mechanisms as appropriate for the system and network architecture:

• Web Application Firewall

• Distributed Denial of Service Protection (e.g., AWS Shield)

• Content Delivery Network (e.g., CloudFront)

Risk Statement

Lack of filtering for direct traffic from the internet exposes the system to the risk of network and application layer attacks, increasing the likelihood of unauthorised access, denial-of-service incidents, and compromise of sensitive data.

NS-6: Valid and Trusted SSL/TLS Certificates

• Group: Network Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Ensure that deployed SSL/TLS certificates are:

• signed by a trusted root Certificate Authority;

• match the domain name of the service they are issued for;

• not expired; and

• not revoked.

Control Recommendations

Configure a certificate manager that auto-renews certificates and sends alerts before expiry (e.g., AWS Certificate Manager). Otherwise, automate these functions separately.

Risk Statement

Using invalid SSL/TLS certificates introduces the risk of compromised encryption, man-in-the-middle attacks, and potential unauthorised access to sensitive information.

NS-7: Secure Inter-Service Communication

• Group: Network Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Ensure communications between services are secure by making them authenticated, authorised and encrypted.

Control Recommendations

Design and build inter-service communications (e.g., databases, microservices) to be authenticated, authorised and encrypted (e.g., via API gateways, proxies, private endpoint services, message queues, or service meshes). It is recommended to log communication (such as access logs, transaction logs or payloads) between services for detection, monitoring and investigation of incidents.

Risk Statement

Failure to ensure secure communications between services increases the risk of unauthorised access, data breaches, and potential manipulation of sensitive information during transit.

NS-8: Secure Cloud and On-Premises Connectivity

• Group: Network Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Route network traffic between on-premises systems and cloud systems through a secure intermediary.

Control Recommendations

Design and build secure communications to or from on-premises systems through a managed interface with boundary protection mechanisms rather than direct connectivity (e.g. via API gateways, application proxies or private endpoint services).

Risk Statement

Insecure connectivity between cloud and on-premises environments can lead to data breaches, unauthorised access, and compromise of both cloud and on-premises resources.

BR: Backup and Recovery (3)

BR-1: Backup

• Group: Backup and Recovery

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Backup all important data and systems at least every [br-1_prm_1] day(s), and store backups in a secure and separate location.

Control Recommendations

Use default CSP-managed backup services (e.g., AWS Backup, Azure Backup, GCP Backup and DR Service). Consider alternative backup services only when default CSP services cannot be used. Store backups and snapshots separately to primary data storage with data encrypted-at-rest. For SaaS, ensure that SaaS provider is able to restore last backup.

Risk Statement

Without regular backups stored in a secure and separate location, there is an increased risk of data loss, system failures, and extended downtime in the event of accidental deletion, hardware failures, or malicious attacks.

Parameters

BR-2: Recovery Testing

• Group: Backup and Recovery

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Conduct testing of recovery processes at least every [br-2_prm_1] day(s) to ensure their effectiveness.

Control Recommendations

Ensure each test verifies the system's ability to fully restore all data and services.

Risk Statement

Failure to regularly test recovery processes may result in ineffective response during actual incidents, increasing the risk of prolonged downtime, data loss, and compromised business continuity in the event of a disaster or system failure.

Parameters

BR-3: Backup Retention

• Group: Backup and Recovery

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Prevent backups from being modified or deleted for [br-3_prm_1] day(s) or as stipulated in the agency's data retention policies.

Control Recommendations

Use S3 Object Lock or Azure Blob Storage with immutability enabled to enforce time-based retention policies.

Risk Statement

Lack of prevention measures against the modification or deletion of backups for the specified duration increases the risk of data loss, unauthorised alterations, and potential inability to recover from incidents, compromising the integrity and availability of critical information.

Parameters

DP: Data Protection (4)

DP-1: Data Residency

• Group: Data Protection

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Enforce data residency of [dp-1_prm_2] data in [dp-1_prm_1].

Control Recommendations

Data residency in Singapore must be enforced for [dp-1_prm_2] data.

Risk Statement

Failure to enforce data residency in the appropriate country may lead to legal and regulatory compliance issues, privacy concerns, and potential unauthorised access or storage of sensitive data outside the jurisdiction, increasing the risk of legal consequences and data breaches.

Parameters

DP-2: Data at Rest Encryption

• Group: Data Protection

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Encrypt data at rest.

Control Recommendations

Many CSP services encrypt data at rest by default but this should be confirmed and validated depending on service usage.

Risk Statement

Without encrypting data at rest, there's an increased risk of unauthorised access and data exposure in the event of physical theft, unauthorised access to storage media, or compromised security controls, compromising the confidentiality of stored information.

DP-3: Data in Transit Encryption

• Group: Data Protection

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Encrypt data in transit.

Control Recommendations

While some CSP services transparently encrypt data in transit at the network layer, data at the application layer should be encrypted using protocols such as Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Secure Socket Layer (SSL).

Risk Statement

Failure to encrypt data in transit increases the risk of unauthorised interception and eavesdropping, potentially leading to data breaches, unauthorised access, and compromise of sensitive information during transmission.

DP-4: Central Cloud Tenant Management

• Group: Data Protection

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Implement a centralised cloud tenant management structure for [dp-4_prm_1] using [dp-4_prm_2].

Control Recommendations

Consider services like AWS Organizations, GCP Organizations, or Azure Management Groups for centralised management. Implement appropriate landing zone frameworks. Establish consistent policies and guardrails across all accounts or projects. Centralise logging and monitoring for comprehensive visibility. Use tagging strategies for resource organisation.

Risk Statement

Lack of centralised cloud tenant management can lead to inconsistent security policies, reduced visibility, and increased difficulty in managing and securing cloud resources across the organisation.

Parameters

LM: Logging and Monitoring (18)

LM-1: Separate Log Storage

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Store logs in a different system or system component than the system component that generated the logs.

Control Recommendations

Do not store logs only in the same system component that generated it. For example, an application server on EC2 or ECS should send logs to a separate storage such as an S3 bucket as soon as possible after the logged event instead of only storing it on the server. For cloud audit logs, store them in a separate system or account.

Risk Statement

Storing logs in a repository separate from the system component reduces the risk of tampering, unauthorised access, and manipulation of logs if the system component is compromised.

LM-2: Tamper-Resistant Log Storage

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Protect logs from unauthorised access, modification, and deletion.

Control Recommendations

Apply access control policies to logs based on the principle of least privilege. As far as possible, only read access should be granted. Logs sent to GCC Central Logs are tamper-resistant.

Risk Statement

Without protection measures, logs are susceptible to unauthorised access, modification, or deletion, leading to the risk of tampering, loss of crucial audit information, and compromised forensic analysis capabilities during security incidents.

LM-3: Network Flow Logging

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Log network traffic going to and from network interfaces.

Control Recommendations

Enable VPC Flow Logs for AWS or its equivalents.

Risk Statement

Failing to log network traffic going to and from network interfaces increases the risk of overlooking suspicious activities, potential security breaches, and the inability to trace and investigate network-related incidents effectively.

LM-4: Audit Logging

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Log management and audit events.

Control Recommendations

For cloud, configure CloudTrail for AWS or its equivalents to log management and audit events such as changes to accounts, access, IAM policies and resources. For SaaS and COTS, enable audit logging features.

Risk Statement

Neglecting to log and manage audit events increases the risk of undetected security incidents, compromises visibility into system activities, and hinders effective forensic analysis and compliance monitoring.

LM-5: Database Logging

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Log database audit events.

Control Recommendations

Enable RDS logging for AWS or its equivalents.

Risk Statement

Neglecting to log database audit events raises the risk of overlooking unauthorised activities, compromises in data security, and hinders the ability to track and investigate security incidents or compliance violations within the database environment.

LM-6: Access Logging

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Log access requests sent to web application firewalls, load balancers, proxies or web servers.

Control Recommendations

Enable AWS WAF logging, Application Load Balancer logging, API Gateways, or their equivalents.

Risk Statement

Failure to log access requests sent to web application firewalls, load balancers, proxies, or web servers increases the risk of overlooking potential security threats, unauthorised access attempts, and compromises visibility into the traffic that could lead to security incidents.

LM-7: Host Security Event Logging

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Log security events on hosts.

Control Recommendations

Host security events include operating system security events, authentication, and endpoint detection and response alerts, configuration changes, and account and access rights changes.

Risk Statement

Neglecting to log security events on hosts increases the risk of undetected security incidents, compromises incident response capabilities, and hinders forensic analysis, limiting the ability to identify and mitigate potential threats.

LM-8: Security Log Retention

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Retain security logs for at least [lm-8_prm_1] day(s).

Control Recommendations

Security logs include network flow logs, cloud management logs, access logs, database logs and host logs. Retain non-security logs (e.g. application, operations and performance logs) as long as needed for incident resolution and debugging. Consider log lifecycle management automation, such as Amazon S3 Lifecycle configurations.

Risk Statement

Failure to retain security logs increases the risk of losing crucial historical data, hindering investigations, compliance audits, and the ability to identify and respond to security incidents that occurred beyond a limited timeframe.

Parameters

LM-9: Security Monitoring and Alerting

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Configure security monitoring to identify potential security violations or breaches and send automated alerts, and respond to them accordingly.

Control Recommendations

Enable Amazon GuardDuty, Microsoft Azure Security Center, or their equivalents.

Risk Statement

Without configuring security monitoring to identify potential security violations or breaches and send automated alerts, there's an increased risk of delayed or unnoticed security incidents, hindering timely response and mitigation efforts to protect the system from further compromise.

LM-10: Resource Usage Monitoring and Alerting

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Configure resource usage monitoring to identify abnormal usage and send automated alerts.

Control Recommendations

Configure Amazon CloudWatch alarms, Azure Monitor alerts, or their equivalents to identify abnormal usage such as spike in usage, access to resources during unexpected hours, and excessive charges.

Risk Statement

Lack of resource usage monitoring with automated alerts increases the risk of overlooking abnormal usage patterns, potential resource abuse, and compromises in system performance, hindering the ability to proactively address issues and prevent service disruptions.

LM-11: Service Level Monitoring and Alerting

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Monitor, maintain and alert on service level objectives (SLOs) and indicators (SLIs) to ensure consistent service performance, availability and reliability.

Control Recommendations

Implement a comprehensive monitoring system that tracks key SLIs and evaluates them against defined SLOs. This will help in identifying potential service level breaches early and take proactive measures to maintain service quality. Examples include CloudWatch metrics and alerts, Amazon Route 53 health checks, Azure Monitor Application Insights, or their equivalents.

Risk Statement

Without effective service level monitoring to identify potential application or service degradation and send automated alerts, there is a risk of failing to meet service availability standards, which could result in user dissatisfaction and reduced reliability.

LM-12: Central Security Log Management and Monitoring

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Centralise security log management and monitoring with [lm-12_prm_1].

Control Recommendations

Tenants on Government Commercial Cloud (GCC) already have Cloud Service Provider (CSP) tenant security logs stored centrally and available for forwarding to Government Cyber Security Operations Centre (GCSOC). Contact GCSOC for subscription and additional services.

Risk Statement

Lack of central security log management and monitoring increases the risk of delayed or unnoticed security incidents, hindering effective response, and compromising the overall cybersecurity posture.

Parameters

LM-13: Anomalous Database Activity Monitoring

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Monitor database activities for anomalous activity.

Control Recommendations

Configure database activity monitoring tools, such as RDS Activity Streams or similar mechanisms, to detect and alert on unusual authentication attempts, abnormal read or write operations, or other anomalous database activity.

Risk Statement

Neglecting to monitor database activities for anomalous behaviour increases the risk of undetected security threats, unauthorised access, and compromises in data integrity, hindering the ability to identify and respond to potential database-related incidents.

LM-14: Web Defacement Monitoring

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Plan for and implement measures to detect and recover from web defacements.

Control Recommendations

Visual monitoring tools enable detection of web defacements of internet-facing systems.

Risk Statement

Failure to detect and respond to web defacement promptly will lead to prolonged disruption to services.

LM-15: Structured Log Formatting

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Publish logs in a consistent, structured format that aligns with industry standards for easy parsing and analysis.

Control Recommendations

For security logs, implement or transform to OCSF (Open Cybersecurity Schema Framework), ECS (Elastic Common Schema) or similar schemas to standardise log formats for better threat detection and analysis. For operational logs, adopt OpenTelemetry or structured JSON formats to facilitate clear, structured, and efficient log analysis for system performance and diagnostics. Consistent log formatting aids in automated parsing and helps in integrating logs from various sources.

Risk Statement

Inconsistent or unstructured log formatting can lead to difficulties in log analysis and monitoring, potentially resulting in missed critical events or delayed response to system anomalies.

LM-16: Key Signals Monitoring

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Monitor key user-facing signals to maintain robust service health and performance.

Control Recommendations

Implement monitoring of key signals such as latency, traffic, errors, and saturation (the 4 Golden Signals). Regularly track and analyse these indicators for proactive issue detection and resolution. Use this data to identify trends and areas for system improvement, ensuring continuous enhancement in service quality and reliability.

Risk Statement

Inadequate monitoring of key user-facing signals such as latency, traffic, errors, and saturation can lead to suboptimal service performance, adversely impacting user experience, system efficiency, and increasing the likelihood of system failures. This oversight can significantly detract from service reliability and user satisfaction.

LM-17: Software delivery performance monitoring

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Measure and analyse software delivery performance to optimise development velocity and operational efficiency.

Control Recommendations

Implement tools and processes to track Deployment Frequency, Lead Time for Changes, Change Failure Rate, and Time to Restore Service (the DORA 4 Key metrics). Use these metrics as benchmarks to drive continuous improvement in the software development and deployment process, enhancing agility, reliability, and responsiveness to changes.

Risk Statement

Failing to measure and improve the software delivery performance can lead to inefficient development processes, reduced software quality and longer recovery times.

LM-19: Log Sanitisation

• Group: Logging and Monitoring

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Sanitise logs to protect classified and sensitive data before it is recorded in any logging system or shared to any third party.

Control Recommendations

Identify types of classified and sensitive data that may appear in logs. When logging, consider using sanitisation techniques like masking or tokenisation. This ensures that sensitive information — such as PII, credentials, API keys, and payment details — are not stored in plaintext during log collection.

Risk Statement

Failing to sanitise logs increases the risk of unauthorised exposure or misuse of sensitive information and other confidential data. This exposure could lead to privacy breaches, financial losses, compliance violations and damage to national reputation.

AC: Access Control (14)

AC-1: Principle of Least Privilege

• Group: Access Control

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Deny access by default and grant only the minimum permissions required for authorised accounts or processes to perform a specific function based on the account inventory implemented.

Control Recommendations

Consider attribute- or feature-based access control for greater customisability and granularity. Use automated tools such as AWS IAM Access Advisor or Azure AD Access Review to assist with granular permission management.

Risk Statement

Violating the principle of least privileges increases the risk of unauthorised access, privilege escalation, and potential security breaches due to unnecessary permissions, compromising the overall security posture.

AC-2: Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)

• Group: Access Control

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Require MFA for privileged accounts at login.

Control Recommendations

Ensure that the authentication factors are different and independent of the accessing device. For additional security, consider MFA for privileged actions at the application level (such as step-up MFA challenges via PIM tools).

Risk Statement

Without requiring phishing-resistant Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for remote access, there is an increased risk of unauthorised access, credential theft, and potential compromise of sensitive systems, especially for accounts with elevated privileges.

AC-3: Inactive and Expired Accounts

• Group: Access Control

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Disable or remove [ac-3_prm_3] accounts within [ac-3_prm_1] day(s) from last day of authorised use or have not been used for [ac-3_prm_2] day(s).

Control Recommendations

Use automated checks to identify accounts and credentials that should be disabled. Consider using automated workflows such as System for Cross-domain Identity Management (SCIM) or identity lifecycle management tools. For cloud service provider accounts, use tools such as AWS Config iam-user-unused-credentials-check to manage Identity and Access Management (IAM) Users.

Risk Statement

Failure to disable or remove unused accounts or credentials with elevated access increases the risk of unauthorised access, as dormant accounts may become targets for exploitation, compromising the security of the system.

Parameters

AC-4: Access Review

• Group: Access Control

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Perform an access review [ac-4_prm_1] and remove unauthorised or unnecessary access rights within [ac-4_prm_2] day(s).

Control Recommendations

For application accounts, implement automated review workflows or reports. For cloud service provider accounts and roles, use tools such as AWS IAM Access Advisor or Azure AD Access Review to facilitate and manage access reviews.

Risk Statement

Without regular access reviews and prompt removal of unauthorised or unnecessary access rights, there is an increased risk of lingering access, potential misuse of privileges, and compromised security, impacting the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data.

Parameters

AC-5: Endpoint Device Hardening

• Group: Access Control

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Require hardened endpoint devices for remote developer, maintainer, or administrator access.

Control Recommendations

Use Endpoint Management platforms to continuously check and enforce device security posture and deny access if the hardening requirements are not met.

Risk Statement

Without requiring hardened endpoint devices for remote access, there's an increased risk of compromised endpoints, potential malware infections, and security breaches, which could lead to unauthorised access and compromise the integrity of systems.

AC-6: Default Credentials

• Group: Access Control

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Change default credentials prior to first use.

Control Recommendations

Identify any default credentials used in any system components before deploying and change them. Configure end-user systems to prompt for password change on first login after account creation or reset.

Risk Statement

Failure to change default credentials prior to first use increases the risk of unauthorised access, as default credentials are often well-known and targeted by attackers, compromising the security of the system or device.

AC-7: Singpass/Corppass for Public Users

• Group: Access Control

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Use Singpass or Corppass MFA for digital services that require high level of identity assurance for Public Users.

Control Recommendations

For high impact or high risk transactions, use Singpass/Corppass to identify Public Users (e.g. citizens). Agency or internal Users should use Government managed Single Sign-on (SSO) solutions (such as WOG AAD).

Risk Statement

Leverage on Singpass or Corppass to reduce duplication of effort and provide consistent end user experience.

AC-8: Automated Account Lifecycle Management

• Group: Access Control

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Automate account [ac-8_prm_1] for [ac-8_prm_3] using an account lifecycle management tool.

Control Recommendations

Consider adopting Single Sign-On (SSO) with just-in-time provisioning or account lifecycle management protocols or tools such as [ac-8_prm_2]. Perform validation testing of the integration between systems and tools to ensure that accounts are provisioned and/or deprovisioned in a timely manner. Where applicable, configure the system to enhance management capabilities via automation.

Risk Statement

Manual account and access lifecycle management can introduce errors and weaknesses, thus making access control measures ineffective and unreliable.

Parameters

AC-9: Endpoint Device Management

• Group: Access Control

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Implement and maintain an endpoint device management solution to ensure the security and integrity of endpoint devices used within the organisation.

Control Recommendations

Mobile Device Management (MDM) platforms enable management, monitoring, and secure configuration of endpoint devices. This includes enforcing disk encryption, managing configuration, ensuring regular updates, and providing the ability to remotely wipe data in case of device loss or theft.

Risk Statement

Unmanaged endpoint devices increase the risk of unauthorised access and potential loss of sensitive information due to the compromise of devices.

AC-10: Identity and Device-Based Access Control

• Group: Access Control

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Adopt Identity and Device-Based Access Control for secure and context-aware connectivity to private organisational resources.

Control Recommendations

Use solutions such as Secure Service Edge (SSE), Identity Aware Proxies (IAP) or other Zero Trust services (Entra ID Conditional Access, Okta Device Trust, etc) that integrate identity and device management systems to provide granular access control to resources based on user identity and device posture.

Risk Statement

Relying on direct connections or traditional VPNs for remote access can lead to vulnerabilities, as they do not always incorporate strong identity and device-based security measures. This increases the risk of unauthorised access and potential data breaches.

AC-11: Single User Endpoints

• Group: Access Control

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Assign each endpoint device to a single designated primary [ac-11_prm_1] and enforce the assignment to ensure accountability and enhance security monitoring.

Control Recommendations

Implement measures such as user authentication and endpoint management with device enrolment to enforce the single primary user per endpoint. If secondary accounts for local device support or maintenance activities are used, consider securing them with endpoint privilege management tools.

Risk Statement

Allowing multiple users to access a single endpoint device can lead to security risks such as data leakage, difficulty in tracking user activities, and increased vulnerability to insider threats.

Parameters

AC-12: Single Sign-On (SSO) for Internal Services and Accounts

• Group: Access Control

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Use Single Sign-On (SSO) for internal services and accounts.

Control Recommendations

Configure multi-factor authentication (MFA) at the Single-Sign On (SSO) identity provider (IdP) and ensure that access to the system is only granted after the IdP authenticates the user.

Risk Statement

Without Single Sign-On (SSO), there is an increased risk of unauthorised access and compromised user credentials, as users may resort to using weak passwords or reusing credentials across multiple systems, thereby exposing sensitive information to potential security breaches.

AC-13: Static Credential Expiry and Rotation

• Group: Access Control

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Rotate long-lived static credentials such as API keys, access keys, and personal access tokens every [ac-13_prm_1] day(s) or use time-restricted credentials.

Control Recommendations

Automate credential rotation where possible. Consider time-restricted alternatives to long-lived static credentials, such as AWS Security Token Service and IAM Identity Center authentication instead of IAM user access keys.

Risk Statement

Failure to regularly rotate long-lived credentials or use time-restricted credentials increases the risk of unauthorised access from stolen or unrevoked credentials.

Parameters

AC-14: Inventory of Accounts

• Group: Access Control

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Establish and maintain an inventory of all accounts and their access rights managed within the system.

Control Recommendations

Regularly review and update the account inventory to ensure accuracy and completeness. Implement automated tools where feasible to assist in tracking and managing accounts and their access rights.

Risk Statement

Failure to maintain an accurate inventory of managed accounts increases the risk of unauthorised access, account misuse, and security breaches due to unmonitored or orphaned accounts.

CS: Container Security (11)

CS-1: Unique Base Container Image Tags

• Group: Container Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Use unique base container image tags instead of rolling tags.

Control Recommendations

Avoid the latest tag or other common rolling tags for base images to minimise unintended changes during subsequent builds using the same instruction. A digest SHA can provide a unique identifier for the image if no tag is assigned during build time.

Risk Statement

Using unique base container image tags instead of rolling tags reduces the risk of unintentional updates, inconsistencies, and potential security vulnerabilities in containerised environments, ensuring a more stable and secure deployment process.

CS-2: Minimal Base Container Images

• Group: Container Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Build container images with minimal base images.

Control Recommendations

Use minimal container images such as alpine, scratch, wolfi, and distroless images as the base image to reduce attack surface.

Risk Statement

Building container images with minimal base images reduces the attack surface, potential vulnerabilities, and resource overhead, minimising the risk of security exploits and enhancing the overall security posture of the containerised environment.

CS-3: Runtime Container Secrets

• Group: Container Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Provide secrets and sensitive data to the container at runtime instead of image build time.

Control Recommendations

Ensure no secrets (e.g., TLS certificate keys, cloud provider credentials, SSH private keys, database passwords) are embedded in the container image by using dedicated features like Docker secrets or podman-secret-create.

Risk Statement

Providing secrets and sensitive data to the container at runtime instead of image build time reduces the risk of exposing sensitive information in the image and enhances security by ensuring that secrets are managed and updated independently, minimising the risk of unauthorised access or data compromise.

CS-4: Non-Privileged Container User

• Group: Container Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Create a non-root user and set it as the default user in the container image build instructions.

Control Recommendations

Ensure the non-root user has the minimal set of permissions required to run the container.

Risk Statement

Failure to create a non-root user and set it as the default user in container image build instructions increases the risk of security vulnerabilities, as running containers with root privileges may lead to potential exploitation and compromise of the host system.

CS-5: Dockerfile Linting

• Group: Container Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Lint Dockerfiles before building container images.

Control Recommendations

Use linters such as Hadolint to check the Dockerfile (or similar build file) instructions and flag any issues that contravene best practices. Ensure Dockerfile linting stage is run as part of the Continuous Integration (CI) pipelines.

Risk Statement

Without linting Dockerfiles before building container images, there's an increased risk of syntax errors, misconfigurations, and potential security vulnerabilities, compromising the reliability and security of the resulting containerised applications.

CS-6: Read-Only Container Root Filesystem

• Group: Container Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Configure the container root filesystem to be read-only during runtime, except for designated non-persistent storage locations or mounted volumes for stateful storage (e.g., caches, service data).

Control Recommendations

Use security policies (e.g., readonlyRootFilesystem for Kubernetes) to prevent any direct writes to the container's root filesystem during runtime and ensure immutable infrastructure. Do not directly apply patches or alter running containers as the containers are ephemeral and patches will disappear upon redeploy. Apply patches by rebuilding and redeploying container images. Use tmpfs mounts to mount a temporary file system.

Risk Statement

Failure to configure the container filesystem as read-only increases the risk of unauthorised modifications, potential tampering, and compromise of containerised applications, as attackers may exploit write access to alter the container's state and integrity.

CS-7: Container Image Scanning

• Group: Container Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Scan container images in the [cs-7_prm_1] for known vulnerabilities.

Control Recommendations

Container image scanning tools (e.g., Amazon Inspector, Trivy, Grype) scan the contents of a container image for known vulnerabilities. Configure scans to run automatically and continuously, as well as enable scanning of image on push. Block the deployment of container images that have critical or high severity vulnerabilities detected during the scan (e.g., using Amazon ECR with Security Hub).

Risk Statement

Failure to scan container images increases the risk of deploying insecure images, potentially exposing the infrastructure to known exploits and compromising the security of the containerised applications during runtime.

Parameters

CS-8: Private Container Image Registries

• Group: Container Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Host built container images in private container registries.

Control Recommendations

Use only private container registries (e.g., Amazon ECR private registry) to host container images built by the organisation as images may contain proprietary code or sensitive information.

Risk Statement

Hosting built container images in private registries enhances security by reducing the exposure of sensitive images, minimising the risk of unauthorised access, and maintaining control over image distribution, ensuring a more secure and controlled container deployment process.

CS-9: Container Orchestrator API Access Control

• Group: Container Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Disable public access to Container Orchestrator API endpoints from the internet.

Control Recommendations

Restrict access to the Container Orchestrator API endpoints (such as the Kubernetes API Server) to specific address ranges or use CSP provided features such as disabling Endpoint public access and Private Clusters to disable public access.

Risk Statement

Failure to disable public access to Container Orchestrator API endpoints from the internet increases the risk of unauthorised access, potential exploitation, and security breaches, as exposing these endpoints publicly may lead to unauthorised control and compromise of the container infrastructure.

CS-10: Container Workload Segmentation

• Group: Container Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Segregate container workloads to help contain attacks through isolation.

Control Recommendations

Create Kubernetes namespaces or similar container segmentation controls to isolate different workloads, services or projects.

Risk Statement

Without separating container workloads into namespaces, there's an increased risk of lateral movement and potential compromise.

CS-11: Container Runtime Security

• Group: Container Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Detect and remediate changes to running containers with container runtime protection tools.

Control Recommendations

Runtime protection tools, such as AWS EKS Protection, Microsoft Defender for Containers, or Falco, monitor threats and changes to running containers. Vulnerable container instances should be isolated for investigation and replaced with rebuilt and patched images. To avoid persistence if patches do not exist, the container instance should be replaced frequently with an un-compromised image until a patch released. These tools replace Malware Protection (IS-7) and EDR (IS-8) in container environments.

Risk Statement

Failure to detect and remediate changes to running containers using container runtime protection tools increases the risk of unnoticed compromises, potential exploitation, and unauthorised alterations to containerised applications, compromising the security and integrity of the runtime environment.

PM: Security Programme Management (6)

PM-1: Cybersecurity Incident Management Plan

• Group: Security Programme Management

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Develop, document, and disseminate an organisation-level cybersecurity incident management plan to respond to cybersecurity incidents.

Control Recommendations

Refer to the NIST SP 800-61 Computer Security Incident Handling Guide for guidelines on incident planning and handling.

Risk Statement

Lack of a cybersecurity incident management plan increases the risk of ineffective response to cybersecurity incidents, hindering the ability to contain, mitigate, and recover from security breaches, potentially leading to extended downtime and data compromise.

PM-2: Risk Assessment

• Group: Security Programme Management

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Develop and document a risk assessment by [pm-2_prm_1] and get it approved by [pm-2_prm_2] prior to [pm-2_prm_3] and conduct a review every [pm-2_prm_4] day(s).

Control Recommendations

The Risk Assessment should cover Cyber Risk, Data Risk, Resiliency Risk, Business Risk, Project Risk, Offshore Risk and other types of risk where applicable.

Risk Statement

Without developing and documenting risk assessment before the initial full release, there's an increased risk of overlooking potential security threats, vulnerabilities, and regulatory compliance issues, compromising the overall security posture of the system.

Parameters

PM-3: System Security Plan (SSP) Development

• Group: Security Programme Management

• Profile Level: 0

Control Statement

Develop and maintain a comprehensive System Security Plan (SSP) that accurately reflects the system characteristics and security controls in place for the organisation's systems and environments.

Control Recommendations

The SSP should be detailed, covering all aspects of security controls, roles, responsibilities, and operational processes. Regular updates are necessary to reflect changes in the security landscape and system evolution.

Risk Statement

Failure to develop a comprehensive SSP can result in inadequate documentation and security controls, leading to increased vulnerability to cyber threats and non-compliance with regulatory requirements.

PM-4: Approval of Residual Risks

• Group: Security Programme Management

• Profile Level: 0

Control Statement

Get acceptance and approval of the residual risks from agency's [pm-4_prm_1], and review and seek approval every [pm-4_prm_2] days.

Control Recommendations

Agencies should seek acceptance and approval from their [pm-4_prm_1] on the residual risks based on the SSP and inform GovTech of the approval.

Risk Statement

Failure to seek the right level of authority to accept and approve the residual risks regularly can lead to misalignment of the business implications and trade-offs from the controls set in the SSP with the Agency IDSC direction.

Parameters

PM-5: Central Submission of Approved System Security Plan (SSP)

• Group: Security Programme Management

• Profile Level: 0

Control Statement

Submit approved SSPs centrally to maintain a unified and up-to-date repository of security plans and practices.

Control Recommendations

Use a central submission channel for SSPs.

Risk Statement

Inconsistent or decentralised submission of the SSP can lead to decreased visibility of security and compliance adoption across Government.

PM-6: System Documentation

• Group: Security Programme Management

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Maintain detailed, up-to-date documentation of all system information and architecture.

Control Recommendations

Example system documentation includes architecture and network diagrams, architecture decision records, hardware and software inventories, data flows, and configurations. This documentation should be regularly reviewed and updated to reflect changes in the environment. Documentation should be accessible to relevant personnel while ensuring sensitive information is protected. Adopt documentation-as-code practices and machine-readable formats (such as Markdown, JSON, YAML, etc), to facilitate version control, collaboration, and automation in maintaining documentation.

Risk Statement

Comprehensive documentation of system architecture, components, configurations, and dependencies is essential for effective management, troubleshooting, and security auditing.

IS: Infrastructure Security (14)

IS-1: Management Agents

• Group: Infrastructure Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Install CSP management agents on hosts to remotely and securely manage their configurations.

Control Recommendations

Most CSP compute instances preinstall management agents (e.g., AWS Systems Manager Agent, Azure Windows VM Agent) by default. If the image does not come with the preinstalled agent, install manually.

Risk Statement

Without installing management agents on hosts, there is an increased risk of manual misconfigurations, difficulty in maintaining consistent configurations, and potential security vulnerabilities due to reduced visibility and ability to manage hosts effectively.

IS-2: Automated Patch Management Tools

• Group: Infrastructure Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Use automated patch management tools to facilitate security patching of operating systems and software included in the operating systems.

Control Recommendations

Patch management can be automated as part of the build and deploy phase, such as with golden images for containers and virtual machines. It can also be automated in running instances on the cloud via CSP node management services (such as Azure Update Manager or AWS Systems Manager Patch Manager) and on-premises via patch management services (such as Windows Server Update Services or Configuration Management tools). To minimise risk of disruption due to patching, consider staged rollouts with canary deployments or in non-production environments.

Risk Statement

Failure to automate security patching of operating systems and included software increases the risk of delayed or missed security updates, leaving systems vulnerable to known exploits and potential security breaches, compromising the overall security of the environment.

IS-3: Restricted Administrator Privileges

• Group: Infrastructure Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Restrict administrator privileges by disabling remote login for the root/administrator user and restricting sudo/administrators group access.

Control Recommendations

Further reduce the attack surface by running common services such as the web server or database without root/administrator/system privileges.

Risk Statement

Without restricting administrator privileges, there is an increased risk of unauthorised access, privilege escalation, and potential security breaches, compromising the integrity and security of the system.

IS-4: Least Functionality

• Group: Infrastructure Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Disable or remove unnecessary functions, system ports, protocols, software, and services on the host.

Control Recommendations

Follow the principle of least functionality to configure the host to carry out only its intended purpose. CSP node management services can provide an inventory of software and services (e.g., AWS Systems Manager Inventory). Vulnerability assessment scanners (e.g., AWS Inspector) can also identify software vulnerabilities and network exposure.

Risk Statement

Failure to disable or remove unnecessary functions, system ports, protocols, software, and services on the host increases the attack surface, potential vulnerabilities, and the risk of exploitation, compromising the overall security and performance of the system.

IS-5: Host System Hardening

• Group: Infrastructure Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Harden the host configuration with reference to industry standards.

Control Recommendations

Select the appropriate benchmark for the host such as from the NIST National Checklist Program or CIS Benchmarks. Automate the configuration process or use hardened images instead of manually configuring.

Risk Statement

Without hardening the operating system configuration according to industry standards, there's an increased risk of security vulnerabilities, unauthorised access, and potential exploitation, compromising the overall security posture and resilience of the operating system.

IS-6: Remote Administration

• Group: Infrastructure Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Use remote administration tools to control and monitor remote access.

Control Recommendations

Prioritise remote administration tools (e.g., AWS Systems Manager Session Manager, AWS Systems Manager Fleet Manager) over direct SSH or RDP. If SSH is still required and remote administration tools are not available, use it only within a private non-production environment such as an encrypted tunnel and authenticate with short-lived certificates. Document and remediate gaps in monitoring and automation to minimise the need for remote access.

Risk Statement

Using remote administration tools enhances security by providing controlled and audited access, reducing the risk of unauthorised activities, and improving overall management of privileged identities.

IS-7: Malware Protection

• Group: Infrastructure Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Detect and quarantine malware on hosts with anti-malware tools.

Control Recommendations

Configure anti-malware tools for all compute hosts, preferably leveraging cloud-native services where available. These tools should be kept up-to-date with the latest malware signatures. Regular scans should be scheduled to detect and quarantine potential threats.

Risk Statement

Without malware protection, there's an increased risk of undetected malicious activities, potential data breaches, and compromise of host systems, highlighting the importance of proactive measures to ensure the security and integrity of the environment.

IS-8: Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)

• Group: Infrastructure Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Monitor security threats on hosts with an EDR tool.

Control Recommendations

Implement EDR tools for all compute hosts. Security incident response should be planned and documented for the tool. EDR tools with built-in malware protection should be favoured to reduce additional agents.

Risk Statement

Failure to monitor security threats on hosts with an Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) tool increases the risk of undetected advanced threats, compromises in host security, and delayed response to potential security incidents, highlighting the need for continuous monitoring and proactive threat detection.

IS-9: End-of-Support (EOS) Assets

• Group: Infrastructure Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Ensure deployed [is-9_prm_1] assets have not reached end-of-support (EOS). Use of EOS assets will require risk acceptance by approved authority.

Control Recommendations

Identify, track and replace EOS assets in a timely manner. Regularly review assets to identify upcoming EOS timeframe and replace them ahead of EOS date.

Risk Statement

EOS assets can introduce security vulnerabilities as the assets are no longer provided with security fixes.

Parameters

IS-10: Synchronise time clocks

• Group: Infrastructure Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Synchronise internal clocks to a common reference time source.

Control Recommendations

Use common time source such as Network Time Protocol (NTP). In the cloud, it is recommended to use the default time sources provided by the CSPs.

Risk Statement

The lack of synchronised clocks introduces significant risks, including increased security vulnerabilities, data integrity issues, and challenges in troubleshooting.

IS-11: Central Domain Name Registration

• Group: Infrastructure Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Register .gov.sg and .edu.sg domain names with GovTech as the sole registrar.

Control Recommendations

Use the Whole of Government Domain Name Server (DNS) portal on the IT Service Management (ITSM) portal to register domain names. While the root level of the domain must be registered with ITSM, the use of subdomain delegation to external DNS Services (e.g. AWS Route53, Cloudflare DNS, etc) is allowed.

Risk Statement

Improper management of domain names increase the risk of phishing attacks or domain takeovers.

IS-12: DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)

• Group: Infrastructure Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Implement DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) for public DNS records and servers.

Control Recommendations

DNS services such as WOG DNS, Amazon Route 53 and Cloudflare support DNSSEC configuration.

Risk Statement

Insecure domain name resolution can lead to man-in-the-middle attacks caused by DNS spoofing or DNS cache poisoning.

IS-13: Defensive Domain Name Registration

• Group: Infrastructure Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Register second (.sg) and third (.com.sg, .org.sg, .net.sg, .edu.sg) level domain name variants of the system's primary domain name.

Control Recommendations

Consider defensive registration of domain names with typographical variants of the system's primary domain name.

Risk Statement

Malicious use of domain names similar to actual organisation domain names increases the risk of phishing and spoofing.

IS-14: Singapore SMS Sender ID Registry Registration

• Group: Infrastructure Security

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Register and use whitelisted SMS Sender IDs with the Singapore SMS Sender ID Registry for sending SMSes to members of the public.

Control Recommendations

Agencies must use the "gov.sg" Sender ID via the Postman tool to send SMSes to members of the public unless exempted. Whitelist Sender IDs used to send SMSes and blacklist Sender IDs which are variants of the whitelisted Sender IDs, agency names, or names of services.

Risk Statement

Lack of Sender ID registration allows malicious entities to spoof legitimate Government SMSes.

SD: Secure Development (8)

SD-1: Push Protection for Secrets

• Group: Secure Development

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Configure the code repository to prevent secrets from being pushed to the repository.

Control Recommendations

Use GitLab's push rules or GitHub's push protection to reject secrets on push.

Risk Statement

Failure to configure the code repository to prevent secrets from being pushed introduces the risk of inadvertent exposure, unauthorised access, and potential misuse of sensitive information, compromising the security of the codebase and associated systems.

SD-2: Default Branch Push Permissions

• Group: Secure Development

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Configure the code repository to prevent pushes (including force pushes) to the default branch.

Control Recommendations

Use GitLab's protected branch and merge request settings or GitHub's branch protection settings to enforce this.

Risk Statement

Without configuring the code repository to prevent pushes, including force pushes, to the default branch, there's an increased risk of unintentional or malicious changes, potential loss of code history, and compromised version control, impacting the integrity and reliability of the software development process.

SD-3: Continuous Integration (CI) Tests

• Group: Secure Development

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Require Continuous Integration (CI) tests to pass before merging into the default branch.

Control Recommendations

Use GitLab's protected branch and merge request settings or GitHub's branch protection settings to enforce this.

Risk Statement

Failing to require passing Continuous Integration (CI) tests before merging into the default branch increases the risk of introducing faulty code, potential regressions, and compromise of code quality.

SD-4: Static Analysis

• Group: Secure Development

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Set up a static analysis job in the [sd-4_prm_1], and remediate or risk accept true positive vulnerability findings before deploying to production.

Control Recommendations

Static analysis tools (such as SAST or IaC security scanners) check source code for common vulnerabilities and misconfigurations. By running static analysis tools earlier in the DevSecOps cycle, vulnerabilities can be detected and prevented from being deployed to production.

Risk Statement

Without setting up static analysis in the CI/CD pipeline for each merge request and addressing true positive vulnerability findings, there is an increased risk of deploying insecure code to the production branch, potentially leading to security breaches and compromise of the overall system.

Parameters

SD-5: Dependency Scanning

• Group: Secure Development

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Schedule a scan at least every [sd-5_prm_1] day(s) in the [sd-5_prm_2] to identify the use of vulnerable software libraries.

Control Recommendations

Dependency scanning checks the source code for dependencies with known vulnerabilities. By running scans regularly using bots or software composition analysis (SCA) tools, vulnerabilities arising from outdated dependencies can be quickly detected and patched. Software composition analysis can be performed using tools such as Gitlab, Nexus IQ, or their equivalent, with output in a common SBOM format such as SPDX or CycloneDX.

Risk Statement

Failing to schedule regular dependency scanning to identify vulnerable software libraries and address findings in a timely manner increases the risk of deploying applications with known vulnerabilities, potentially exposing the system to security exploits and compromise.

Parameters

SD-6: Secret Detection

• Group: Secure Development

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Set up secret detection in the [sd-6_prm_1] and remediate true positives within [sd-6_prm_2] day(s).

Control Recommendations

Ensure that the exposed secret is revoked and purged from the Git history.

Risk Statement

Without setting up secret detection and addressing true positive findings promptly, there's an increased risk of exposing sensitive information, potential unauthorised access, and compromised security.

Parameters

SD-7: CI Environment Variable Secrets Management

• Group: Secure Development

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Protect environment variable secrets used in CI jobs by limiting them to protected pipelines and masking them in job logs.

Control Recommendations

Use GitLab's CI/CD variable security settings or GitHub's encrypted secrets with the add-mask workflow command.

Risk Statement

Failing to protect environment variable secrets in CI jobs by limiting them to protected pipelines and masking them in job logs increases the risk of unauthorised access and exposure of sensitive information.

SD-8: Deployment Environment Segregation

• Group: Secure Development

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Segregate production and non-production environments including applications, services, data, secrets, roles, and networks.

Control Recommendations

Achieve segregation using separate cloud tenant accounts for environments such as production, development, test, and staging. Account segregation enhances security by limiting exposure, simplifies resource and cost management, maintains configuration integrity, facilitates compliance and auditing and streamlines operational tasks. Deploy and operate environments as similarly as possible to enhance debugging and time-to-market.

Risk Statement

Failure to segregate production and non-production environments increases the risk of unauthorised access, data leaks, and denial of service attacks, as compromises in non-production environments may lead to cascading impacts on production systems.

CK: Cryptography, Encryption and Key Management (2)

CK-1: Cryptographic Key Establishment

• Group: Cryptography, Encryption and Key Management

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Use industry-standard cryptographic key establishment schemes and key derivation methods.

Control Recommendations

Refer to SP 800-56A, SP 800-56B, and SP 800-56C for updated industry-standard cryptographic key establishment schemes and key derivation methods. Cloud services such as AWS Key Management Service and Azure Key Vault can be used for generating and managing cryptographic keys.

Risk Statement

Insecure cryptographic key establishment can lead to weak or broken encryption.

CK-2: Cryptographic Key Rotation

• Group: Cryptography, Encryption and Key Management

• Profile Level: 2

Control Statement

Rotate cryptographic keys every [ck-2_prm_1] days.

Control Recommendations

Cloud services such as AWS Key Management Service and Azure Key Vault enable automatic rotation of cryptographic keys.

Risk Statement

Failing to rotate cryptographic keys increases the risk of broken encryption.

Parameters