OpenControls Logo

STIG Viewer

STIGViewer Support

The FortiGate firewall must filter traffic destined to the internal enclave in accordance with the specific traffic that is approved and registered in the Ports, Protocols, and Services Management (PPSM) Category Assurance List (CAL), Vulnerability Assessments (VAs) for that the enclave.

Overview

Finding IDVersionRule IDIA ControlsSeverity
V-234147FNFG-FW-000085SV-234147r628789_ruleCCI-001097medium
Description
The enclave's internal network contains the servers where mission-critical data and applications reside. Malicious traffic can enter from an external boundary or originate from a compromised host internally. Vulnerability assessments must be reviewed by the SA and protocols must be approved by the IA staff before entering the enclave. Firewall filters (e.g., rules, access control lists [ACLs], screens, and policies) are the first line of defense in a layered security approach. They permit authorized packets and deny unauthorized packets based on port or service type. They enhance the posture of the network by not allowing packets to even reach a potential target within the security domain. The filters provided are highly susceptible ports and services that should be blocked or limited as much as possible without adversely affecting customer requirements. Auditing packets attempting to penetrate the network but stopped by the firewall filters will allow network administrators to broaden their protective ring and more tightly define the scope of operation. If the perimeter is in a deny-by-default posture and what is allowed through the filter is in accordance with the PPSM CAL and VAs for the enclave, and if the permit rule is explicitly defined with explicit ports and protocols allowed, then all requirements related to the database being blocked would be satisfied.
STIGDate
Fortinet FortiGate Firewall Security Technical Implementation Guide2025-11-19

Related Frameworks

1 mapping across 5 frameworks
SCF0 mappings

No source states a mapping between these directly.

Also reachable in 3 hops (18) derived by us, not asserted by any source

Each of these is a route we composed by chaining published mappings. No publisher states a relationship between the two endpoints.

CFG-02Secure Baseline Configurations
1.00
CRY-01Use of Cryptographic Controls
1.00
CRY-01.1Alternate Physical Protection
1.00
CRY-03Transmission Confidentiality
1.00
CRY-04Transmission Integrity
1.00
CRY-05Encrypting Data At Rest
1.00
DCH-01Data Protection
1.00
IAC-21Least Privilege
1.00
MON-01Continuous Monitoring
1.00
MON-01.1Intrusion Detection & Prevention Systems (IDS & IPS)
1.00

+8 more (top 10 by confidence shown)

NIST 800-530 mappings

No source states a mapping between these directly.

Also reachable in 2 hops (10) derived by us, not asserted by any source

Each of these is a route we composed by chaining published mappings. No publisher states a relationship between the two endpoints.

CM-6Configuration Settings
1.00
SC-24Fail in Known State
1.00
SC-47Alternate Communications Paths
1.00
SC-5Denial-of-service Protection
1.00
SC-7Boundary Protection
1.00
SC-7(11)Restrict Incoming Communications Traffic
1.00
SC-7(29)Separate Subnets to Isolate Functions
1.00
SC-7(5)Deny by Default — Allow by Exception
1.00
SI-4System Monitoring
1.00
SI-4(11)Analyze Communications Traffic Anomalies
1.00
NIST 800-1710 mappings

No source states a mapping between these directly.

Also reachable in 3 hops (3) derived by us, not asserted by any source

Each of these is a route we composed by chaining published mappings. No publisher states a relationship between the two endpoints.

3.13.1
1.00
3.13.2
1.00
3.13.5
1.00
CCI1 mapping
CCI-001097
1.00
NIST CSF 2.00 mappings

No source states a mapping between these directly.

Also reachable in 3 hops (5) derived by us, not asserted by any source

Each of these is a route we composed by chaining published mappings. No publisher states a relationship between the two endpoints.

DE.CM-01
1.00
PR.DS-01
1.00
PR.DS-02
1.00
PR.DS-10
1.00
PR.IR-01
1.00

Who does this work

15 NICE work roles and 9 EC-Council certifications.

This is an inference across published mappings, not a single claim by anyone. This check maps to a control, which maps to a Cybersecurity Framework outcome, which NIST assigns to the work roles below. EC-Council separately maps its certifications to those same roles.

A certification prepares someone for a role. It is not evidence that a holder is qualified, and neither NIST nor EC-Council has stated that any certification here addresses this check.

Work-role assignments published by NIST (NICE Framework Components 2.2.0 and the CSF 2.0 OLIR crosswalk). Certification mappings published by EC-Council.

Details

Check Text (C-234147r628789_chk)

Log in to the FortiGate GUI with Super-Admin privilege. 1. Open a CLI console, via SSH or available from the GUI. 2. Run the following command: # show firewall policy # show firewall policy6 Ensure policies are created that only allow approved traffic that is in accordance with the PPSM CAL and VAs for the enclave. If configured policies allow traffic that is not allowed per the PPSM CAL and VAs for the enclave, this is a finding.

Fix Text (F-37297r611440_fix)

Log in to the FortiGate GUI with Super-Admin privilege. 1. Click Policy and Objects. 2. Click IPv4 or IPv6 Policy. 3. Click +Create New. 4. Name the policy, select Incoming and Outgoing Interfaces. 5. Create policies with authorized sources and destinations. 6. Set action to ACCEPT. 7. Ensure the Enable this policy is toggled to right. 8. Click OK. 9. Ensure a policy is created for each interface. Traffic is denied by default and policies must be configured to allow traffic that meets PPSM CAL and VA guidelines.