NIST Special Publication 800-171 Revision 2

Date Published: January 28th, 2021

Withdrawn on May 14, 2024. Superseded by SP 800-171 Rev. 3

Author(s): Ron Ross (NIST), Victoria Pillitteri (NIST), Kelley Dempsey (NIST), Mark Riddle (NARA), Gary Guissanie (IDA)

Note: A Class Deviation is in effect as of May 2, 2024 (DEVIATION 2024O0013). The deviation clause requires contractors, who are subject to 252.204-7012, to comply with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171 Revision 2, instead of the version of NIST SP 800-171 in effect at the time the solicitation is issued or as authorized by the contracting officer. Click Here

3.14.4: Update malicious code protection mechanisms when new releases are available.

Control Family: System and Information Integrity

Control Type: Derived

SPRS Value: 5

SPRS Supplemental Guidance: N/A

CMMC Level(s):

  • SI.L1-b.1.xiv

  • SI.L2-3.14.4

Top Ten Failed Requirement:

No

Referenced in:

DFARS 252.204-7012

Derived From: NIST SP 800-53r4

  • SI-3

NIST Supplemental Guidance:

N/A

Discussion:

Malicious code protection mechanisms include anti-virus signature definitions and reputationbased technologies. A variety of technologies and methods exist to limit or eliminate the effects of malicious code. Pervasive configuration management and comprehensive software integrity controls may be effective in preventing execution of unauthorized code. In addition to commercial off-the-shelf software, malicious code may also be present in custom-built software. This could include logic bombs, back doors, and other types of cyber-attacks that could affect organizational missions/business functions. Traditional malicious code protection mechanisms cannot always detect such code. In these situations, organizations rely instead on other safeguards including secure coding practices, configuration management and control, trusted procurement processes, and monitoring practices to help ensure that software does not perform functions other than the functions intended.

Upon assessment, assessors must determine if-

3.14.3[a] response actions to system security alerts and advisories are identified.
3.14.3[b] system security alerts and advisories are monitored.
3.14.3[c] actions in response to system security alerts and advisories are taken.

Assessors are instructed to-

Examine: [SELECT FROM: System and information integrity policy; configuration management policy and procedures; procedures addressing malicious code protection; malicious code protection mechanisms; records of malicious code protection updates; system security plan; system design documentation; system configuration settings and associated documentation; scan results from malicious code protection mechanisms; record of actions initiated by malicious code protection mechanisms in response to malicious code detection; system audit logs and records; other relevant documents or records].

Interview: [SELECT FROM: System or network administrators; personnel with information security responsibilities; personnel installing, configuring, and maintaining the system; personnel with responsibility for malicious code protection; personnel with configuration management responsibility].

Test: [SELECT FROM: Organizational processes for employing, updating, and configuring malicious code protection mechanisms; organizational process for addressing false positives and resulting potential impact; mechanisms supporting or implementing malicious code protection mechanisms (including updates and configurations); mechanisms supporting or implementing malicious code scanning and subsequent actions].

FURTHER DISCUSSION

Malware changes on an hourly or daily basis, and it is important to update detection and protection mechanisms frequently to maintain the effectiveness of the protection.

Example

You have installed anti-malware software to protect a computer from malicious code. Knowing that malware evolves rapidly, you configure the software to automatically check for malware definition updates every day and update as needed [a]. Potential Assessment Considerations

Potential Assessment Considerations

  • Is there a defined frequency by which malicious code protection mechanisms must be updated (e.g., frequency of automatic updates or manual processes) [a]?