OpenControls Logo

STIG Viewer

STIGViewer Support

The Juniper Networks SRX Series Gateway IDPS must protect against or limit the effects of known types of Denial of Service (DoS) attacks by employing signatures.

Overview

Finding IDVersionRule IDIA ControlsSeverity
V-214628JUSX-IP-000019SV-214628r997698_ruleCCI-002385medium
Description
If the network does not provide safeguards against DoS attack, network resources will be unavailable to users. Installation of IDPS detection and prevention components (i.e., sensors) at key boundaries in the architecture mitigates the risk of DoS attacks. These attacks can be detected by matching observed communications traffic with patterns of known attacks and monitoring for anomalies in traffic volume, type, or protocol usage. Detection components that use signatures can detect known attacks by using known attack signatures. Signatures are usually obtained from and updated by the IDPS component vendor. These attacks include SYN-flood, ICMP-flood, and Land Attacks. This requirement applies to the communications traffic functionality of the IDPS as it pertains to handling communications traffic, rather than to the IDPS device itself. The Juniper SRX must be configured with screens using the Firewall STIG to protect against flood and DOS attacks type attacks, but must also be configured for anomaly-based protection
STIGDate
Juniper SRX Services Gateway IDPS Security Technical Implementation Guide2024-06-10

Related Frameworks

2 mappings across 4 frameworks
SCF0 mappings

No source states a mapping between these directly.

Also reachable in 3 hops (13) 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.

MON-01Continuous Monitoring
1.00
MON-01.1Intrusion Detection & Prevention Systems (IDS & IPS)
1.00
MON-01.3Inbound & Outbound Communications Traffic
1.00
MON-01.4System Generated Alerts
1.00
MON-01.8Security Event Monitoring
1.00
NET-01Network Security Controls (NSC)
1.00
NET-02Layered Network Defenses
1.00
SEA-01Secure Engineering Principles
1.00
SEA-02Alignment With Enterprise Architecture
1.00
CAP-01Capacity & Performance Management
0.50

+3 more (top 10 by confidence shown)

NIST 800-530 mappings

No source states a mapping between these directly.

Also reachable in 2 hops (37) 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.

AC-10Concurrent Session Control
1.00
AC-17(9)Disconnect or Disable Access
1.00
AC-2(4)Automated Audit Actions
1.00
AC-3Access Enforcement
1.00
AC-4Information Flow Enforcement
1.00
AC-6(9)Log Use of Privileged Functions
1.00
AU-12Audit Record Generation
1.00
AU-3Content of Audit Records
1.00
AU-5Response to Audit Logging Process Failures
1.00
CM-11(2)Software Installation with Privileged Status
1.00

+27 more (top 10 by confidence shown)

CCI2 mappings
CCI-002385
1.00
CCI-004866
1.00
NIST CSF 2.00 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.

DE.CM-01
1.00
PR.IR-01
1.00
PR.IR-04
0.50

Who does this work

12 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-214628r997698_chk)

Verify an attack group or rule is configured. [edit] show security idp policies If an attack group(s) or rules are not implemented to detect flood and DOS attacks, this is a finding.

Fix Text (F-15830r297449_fix)

Configure an attack group for "FLOOD" and "DOS" attacks in the signature database which are recommended. Consult the Junos Security Intelligence Center IDP signatures website for a list and details of each attack, along with recommended action upon detection. Then add the attack group to a policy. Specify the attack group as match criteria in an IDP policy rule.