Bastion and Jump-Host Enforcement

What It Does

Force privileged access to decisive systems through recorded, brokered hosts.

Observable indicator. Privileged sessions to decisive systems are recorded without exception.

Where It Sits

A technique is chosen from inside a form and emplaced on one layer. Both are the catalog’s own declarations; the position is counted in catalog order.

• Form of maneuverM4 Obstacle / CanalizationForce the adversary onto ground you own and watch.
• Terrain layerT3 NetworksThe corridors. Key terrain: TIC 3.0 access points, segment boundaries, cloud VPC peering.
• Position in the form10 of 17M4 carries 17 cataloged techniques; this is the 10th in catalog order.

Phases It Is Employed In

Employed in 2 of the campaign’s six phases. A phase named here means at least this technique is live in it — not that the form it belongs to is the main effort.

• Phase 0ShapeContinuous terrain preparation, zero-trust hardening, partnerships, threat intelligence.
• Phase IDeterVisible hardening, a deception grid, and a stated attribution posture.

Controls That Assess It

The controls the catalog names against this technique. They are what an assessor would test to establish that it is emplaced and working — the indicator above is what shows it is working, which is a different question.

• KT-2 Decisive Point Protection FloorKey Terrain and Decisive Points — To ensure designation produces protection, so that identifying a decisive point is an act with consequences rather than an annotation.
• CG-3 Rules of EngagementCommand and Governance — To let operators act inside a known mandate rather than guessing at one, and to make the boundaries of that mandate legally and operationally sound.

In MITRE D3FEND

What this technique is called in MITRE’s countermeasure ontology. The join runs technique-to-technique: D3FEND catalogs countermeasures, and the thing with a countermeasure’s shape here is the technique, not the control.

• D3-NAM Network Access MediationIsolate tactic
• D3-RFAM Remote File Access MediationIsolate tactic

That a technique reaches a D3FEND countermeasure says the two describe the same defensive act. It does not say the countermeasure is deployed, configured, or working — that is an assessment finding about your estate, not a property of the framework.

Related Techniques

The catalog declares no relation for this entry, and no other entry names it — the inverse is derived here, so an incoming edge would show up even though this one never declared it. The techniques below share its assessment surface, which is the nearest adjacency the data supports.

Assessed Alongside

Not a declared relation: these are the techniques whose assessing controls overlap this one’s, ranked by how much of the two assessment surfaces coincide. Showing 6 of 30 that share at least one control.

• 2 shared controlsM3.15 Break-Glass Account ControlM3 Envelopment · T1 Identity
  • CG-3
  • KT-2
• 2 shared controlsM8.04 Fail-Secure Default PostureM8 Isolation / Retrograde · TX Cross-Cutting
  • CG-3
  • KT-2
• 1 shared controlM10.06 Doctrine and Catalog UpdateM10 Exploitation & Pursuit · TX Cross-Cutting
  • CG-3
• 1 shared controlM11.02 Isolated Recovery EnvironmentM11 Reconstitution · T5 Data
  • KT-2
• 1 shared controlM2.03 Crown-Jewel EnclaveM2 Defense in Depth · T5 Data
  • KT-2
• 1 shared controlM2.04 Independent Control RedundancyM2 Defense in Depth · TX Cross-Cutting
  • KT-2