📝 AWS EC2 Security Group allows unrestricted RPC traffic 🟢

• Contextual name: 📝 Security Group allows unrestricted RPC traffic 🟢
• ID: /ce/ca/aws/ec2/security-group-allows-unrestricted-rpc-traffic
• Located in: 📁 AWS EC2

Flags

• 🟢 Policy with categories
• 🟢 Policy with type
• 🟢 Production policy

Our Metadata

• Policy Type: COMPLIANCE_POLICY
• Policy Category:
  • SECURITY

Similar Policies

• Cloud Conformity
  • Unrestricted RPC Access
• Internal
  • dec-x-66358b45

Similar Internal Rules

Rule	Policies	Flags
✉️ dec-x-66358b45	1

Logic

• 🧠 prod.logic.yaml 🟢
  • 📕 AWS EC2 Security Group
  • 🔌 AWS EC2 Security Group Rule - object.extracts.yaml
  • 🧪 test-data.json

Description

Open File

Description

Restrict inbound RPC traffic in AWS EC2 security groups to enhance network security and prevent unauthorized communication. RPC traffic, typically associated with port 135, facilitates inter-process communication between distributed systems. However, unrestricted access to this port poses significant security risks, including unauthorized access or exploitation of vulnerabilities.

Rational

RPC traffic is commonly exploited by attackers to gain unauthorized access to systems or execute malicious actions remotely. By restricting RPC traffic in security groups, organizations can mitigate risks such as unauthorized data access, lateral movement within networks, and exploitation of protocol vulnerabilities. Unchecked RPC traffic can also facilitate the spread of malware within a network. Limiting access to trusted IP ranges reduces the overall attack surface, thereby strengthening the security of the associated EC2 instances.

Impact

Restricting RPC traffic requires evaluating dependent applications to ensure they're functionality is not disrupted.

... see more

Remediation

Open File

Remediation

From Command Line

1. Run the following command to remove or modify the unrestricted rule for RPC access:

aws ec2 revoke-security-group-ingress \
--region {{region-name}} \
--group-id {{security-group-id}} \
--protocol {{protocol}} \
--port 135 \
--cidr {{0.0.0.0/0 or ::/0}}

• Optionally, run the authorise-security-group-ingress command to create a new rule, specifying a trusted CIDR range instead of 0.0.0.0/0.

2. Confirm the changes by describing the security group again and ensuring the unrestricted access rule has been removed or appropriately restricted:

aws ec2 describe-security-groups \
--region {{region-name}} \
--group-ids {{security-group-id}} \
--query 'SecurityGroups[*].IpPermissions[?FromPort==`135`].{CIDR:IpRanges[*].CidrIp,Port:FromPort}'

3. Test applications dependent on RPC to ensure they are unaffected by the changes.

policy.yaml

Open File

Linked Framework Sections

Section	Sub Sections	Internal Rules	Policies	Flags
💼 APRA CPG 234 → 💼 36f network design — to ensure authorised network traffic flows and to reduce the impact of security compromises;		28	29
💼 APRA CPG 234 → 💼 45 An understanding of plausible worst case scenarios can help regulated entities identify and implement additional controls to prevent or reduce the impact of such scenarios. One example is malware that infects computers and encrypts data, both on the infected computer and any connected storage, including (corporate) networks and cloud storage. Such attacks reinforce the importance of protecting the backup environment in the event that the production environment is compromised. Common techniques to achieve this include network segmentation, highly restricted and segregated access controls and network traffic flow restrictions.		34	36
💼 AWS Foundational Security Best Practices v1.0.0 → 💼 [EC2.19] Security groups should not allow unrestricted access to ports with high risk			10
💼 Cloudaware Framework → 💼 Threat Protection			25
💼 FedRAMP High Security Controls → 💼 AC-3 Access Enforcement (L)(M)(H)		37	47
💼 FedRAMP High Security Controls → 💼 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (M)(H)	2	31	65
💼 FedRAMP High Security Controls → 💼 AC-4(21) Physical or Logical Separation of Information Flows (M)(H)		11	39
💼 FedRAMP High Security Controls → 💼 CM-2 Baseline Configuration (L)(M)(H)	3	1	14
💼 FedRAMP High Security Controls → 💼 CM-2(2) Automation Support for Accuracy and Currency (M)(H)			13
💼 FedRAMP High Security Controls → 💼 CM-7 Least Functionality (L)(M)(H)	3	18	21
💼 FedRAMP High Security Controls → 💼 CM-7(1) Periodic Review (M)(H)		11	11
💼 FedRAMP High Security Controls → 💼 SC-7 Boundary Protection (L)(M)(H)	10	6	33
💼 FedRAMP High Security Controls → 💼 SC-7(4) External Telecommunications Services (M)(H)			17
💼 FedRAMP High Security Controls → 💼 SC-7(5) Deny by Default — Allow by Exception (M)(H)			19
💼 FedRAMP High Security Controls → 💼 SC-7(21) Isolation of System Components (H)			16
💼 FedRAMP Low Security Controls → 💼 AC-3 Access Enforcement (L)(M)(H)			47
💼 FedRAMP Low Security Controls → 💼 CM-2 Baseline Configuration (L)(M)(H)			13
💼 FedRAMP Low Security Controls → 💼 CM-7 Least Functionality (L)(M)(H)			18
💼 FedRAMP Low Security Controls → 💼 SC-7 Boundary Protection (L)(M)(H)			23
💼 FedRAMP Moderate Security Controls → 💼 AC-3 Access Enforcement (L)(M)(H)			47
💼 FedRAMP Moderate Security Controls → 💼 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (M)(H)	1		51
💼 FedRAMP Moderate Security Controls → 💼 AC-4(21) Physical or Logical Separation of Information Flows (M)(H)			39
💼 FedRAMP Moderate Security Controls → 💼 CM-2 Baseline Configuration (L)(M)(H)	3		14
💼 FedRAMP Moderate Security Controls → 💼 CM-2(2) Automation Support for Accuracy and Currency (M)(H)			13
💼 FedRAMP Moderate Security Controls → 💼 CM-7 Least Functionality (L)(M)(H)	3		21
💼 FedRAMP Moderate Security Controls → 💼 CM-7(1) Periodic Review (M)(H)			11
💼 FedRAMP Moderate Security Controls → 💼 SC-7 Boundary Protection (L)(M)(H)	7		29
💼 FedRAMP Moderate Security Controls → 💼 SC-7(4) External Telecommunications Services (M)(H)			17
💼 FedRAMP Moderate Security Controls → 💼 SC-7(5) Deny by Default — Allow by Exception (M)(H)			19
💼 ISO/IEC 27001:2013 → 💼 A.9.1.2 Access to networks and network services		17	18
💼 NIST CSF v1.1 → 💼 PR.AC-4: Access permissions and authorizations are managed, incorporating the principles of least privilege and separation of duties		17	35
💼 NIST CSF v1.1 → 💼 PR.DS-5: Protections against data leaks are implemented		43	51
💼 NIST CSF v1.1 → 💼 PR.PT-3: The principle of least functionality is incorporated by configuring systems to provide only essential capabilities		21	25
💼 NIST CSF v2.0 → 💼 DE.CM-01: Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events			83
💼 NIST CSF v2.0 → 💼 DE.CM-09: Computing hardware and software, runtime environments, and their data are monitored to find potentially adverse events			89
💼 NIST CSF v2.0 → 💼 ID.AM-03: Representations of the organization's authorized network communication and internal and external network data flows are maintained			31
💼 NIST CSF v2.0 → 💼 PR.AA-05: Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined in a policy, managed, enforced, and reviewed, and incorporate the principles of least privilege and separation of duties			58
💼 NIST CSF v2.0 → 💼 PR.DS-01: The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-at-rest are protected			82
💼 NIST CSF v2.0 → 💼 PR.DS-02: The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-transit are protected			69
💼 NIST CSF v2.0 → 💼 PR.DS-10: The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-use are protected			67
💼 NIST CSF v2.0 → 💼 PR.IR-01: Networks and environments are protected from unauthorized logical access and usage			40
💼 NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 → 💼 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement	32	61	73
💼 NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 → 💼 AC-4(21) Information Flow Enforcement _ Physical or Logical Separation of Information Flows		35	39
💼 NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 → 💼 CA-9(1) Internal System Connections _ Compliance Checks			15
💼 NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 → 💼 CM-2 Baseline Configuration	7		13
💼 NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 → 💼 CM-2(2) Baseline Configuration _ Automation Support for Accuracy and Currency			13
💼 NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 → 💼 CM-7 Least Functionality	9		11
💼 NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 → 💼 SC-7 Boundary Protection	29	5	33
💼 NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 → 💼 SC-7(4) Boundary Protection _ External Telecommunications Services			17
💼 NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 → 💼 SC-7(5) Boundary Protection _ Deny by Default — Allow by Exception		5	19
💼 NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 → 💼 SC-7(11) Boundary Protection _ Restrict Incoming Communications Traffic			15
💼 NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 → 💼 SC-7(16) Boundary Protection _ Prevent Discovery of System Components			16
💼 NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 → 💼 SC-7(21) Boundary Protection _ Isolation of System Components			16
💼 PCI DSS v3.2.1 → 💼 1.2.1 Restrict inbound and outbound traffic to that which is necessary for the cardholder data environment, and specifically deny all other traffic.		10	14
💼 PCI DSS v3.2.1 → 💼 2.2.3 Implement additional security features for any required services, protocols, or daemons that are considered to be insecure.		3	3
💼 PCI DSS v4.0.1 → 💼 1.3.1 Inbound traffic to the CDE is restricted.			14
💼 PCI DSS v4.0.1 → 💼 1.3.2 Outbound traffic from the CDE is restricted.			14
💼 PCI DSS v4.0.1 → 💼 2.2.5 If any insecure services, protocols, or daemons are present, business justification is documented.			3
💼 PCI DSS v4.0 → 💼 1.3.1 Inbound traffic to the CDE is restricted.			14
💼 PCI DSS v4.0 → 💼 1.3.2 Outbound traffic from the CDE is restricted.			14
💼 PCI DSS v4.0 → 💼 2.2.5 If any insecure services, protocols, or daemons are present, business justification is documented.			3
💼 UK Cyber Essentials → 💼 1.2 Prevent access to the administrative interface from the internet		35	37