Skip to main content

ISO 27001 Guest WiFi: Una guía de cumplimiento

Esta referencia técnica autorizada relaciona directamente las implementaciones de Guest WiFi con los controles de ISO 27001:2022, detallando los requisitos de segregación de red, registro y tratamiento de riesgos. Ofrece orientación práctica para gerentes de TI y arquitectos de red sobre cómo generar evidencia lista para auditorías y aprovechar las certificaciones SOC 2 de los proveedores para cumplir con los mandatos de aseguramiento de proveedores del SGSI.

📖 5 min de lectura📝 1,160 palabras🔧 2 ejemplos3 preguntas📚 8 términos clave

🎧 Escuchar esta guía

Ver transcripción
ISO 27001 Guest WiFi: A Compliance Primer Purple Technical Briefing Podcast — Episode Script Approximate runtime: 10 minutes | Voice: UK English, senior consultant tone --- SEGMENT 1: INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT (approx. 1 minute) Welcome to the Purple Technical Briefing. I'm your host for today's episode, and we're diving into a topic that sits at the intersection of network operations and information security governance: guest WiFi and ISO 27001 compliance. If you're an IT manager, a network architect, or an ISO 27001 lead auditor at a hotel group, a retail chain, a stadium, or a public-sector organisation, this episode is built for you. We're not going to cover ISO 27001 from scratch — you know the standard. What we are going to do is give you a precise, practical map of how your guest WiFi deployment fits into your Information Security Management System, which controls apply, what your risk assessment needs to document, and critically, what evidence you need to produce when the auditor walks through the door. Guest WiFi is one of those areas that organisations consistently underestimate from a compliance perspective. It feels like a commodity service — plug in some access points, hand out a password, done. But from an ISMS standpoint, it is a live information asset that touches your network boundary, your supplier relationships, your data protection obligations, and your legal exposure. Let's unpack that properly. --- SEGMENT 2: TECHNICAL DEEP-DIVE (approx. 5 minutes) Let's start with the control mapping. ISO 27001:2022 restructured its Annex A controls, and several of them apply directly to guest WiFi. The most critical cluster sits in the Technology Controls section — that's Annex A clause 8. Control A.8.22 — Segregation of Networks — is your foundational requirement. This control mandates that groups of information services, users, and systems be segregated on networks. For guest WiFi, this translates directly to VLAN isolation. Your guest network must be logically and, where appropriate, physically separated from your corporate network, your payment processing environment, and any IoT or operational technology segments. If an auditor finds that guest traffic can reach internal file shares or management interfaces, that is a clear nonconformity against A.8.22. Control A.8.20 — Networks Security — requires that networks be managed and controlled to protect information in systems and applications. For guest WiFi, this means documented firewall rules, access control lists, and a network security policy that explicitly addresses the guest segment. You need to be able to show the auditor a current network diagram with the guest VLAN clearly labelled, and the firewall ruleset that governs what that segment can and cannot reach. Control A.8.21 — Security of Network Services — addresses third-party network service providers. Most organisations running guest WiFi are using a managed service provider, a cloud-based captive portal platform, or an ISP-provided solution. Each of those is a supplier relationship that needs to be governed. You need service level agreements that include security requirements, and you need evidence of periodic supplier review. This is where vendor SOC 2 Type II attestations become genuinely useful — we'll come back to that. Control A.8.15 — Logging — requires that event logs be produced, stored, protected, and analysed. For guest WiFi, this means logging connection events, authentication attempts, and session data. Now, there is a tension here with GDPR and data minimisation principles, particularly in the UK and EU. You need to log enough to satisfy your security monitoring obligations, but not so much that you are retaining personal data beyond what is necessary. Your logging policy should explicitly address the guest WiFi scope, define retention periods, and document the legal basis for any personal data captured. Control A.8.23 — Web Filtering — requires that access to external websites be managed to protect systems from malware infection and to prevent access to unauthorised web resources. For guest WiFi, this typically means deploying DNS-based filtering or a cloud web proxy that blocks known malicious domains, command-and-control infrastructure, and, depending on your sector, categories of inappropriate content. A hotel operator serving a family audience has different filtering obligations than a conference centre serving enterprise delegates, but both need a documented policy and evidence that the filtering is active and reviewed. Moving to the Organisational Controls — Annex A clause 5 — two controls are particularly relevant. Control A.5.14 — Information Transfer — governs the rules, procedures, and controls for the transfer of information. If guests are using your network to transfer files, access cloud services, or conduct business, you need an Acceptable Use Policy that is presented to them at authentication — typically via the captive portal — and accepted before access is granted. That acceptance event needs to be logged as evidence. Control A.5.31 — Legal, Statutory, Regulatory, and Contractual Requirements — requires that you identify and document all relevant legal and regulatory obligations. For guest WiFi, this includes GDPR or UK GDPR if you are capturing any personal data at authentication, the Investigatory Powers Act if you are in the UK and may be required to retain communications data, and sector-specific regulations such as PCI DSS if your guest network is in scope for cardholder data. Now, the risk assessment. ISO 27001 is a risk-based standard, which means you cannot simply implement controls and call it done. You need to document a formal risk assessment for the guest WiFi asset. That assessment should identify threats — unauthorised access to internal systems, malware propagation from guest devices, data interception on the wireless medium, denial of service, and reputational damage from misuse of your network. For each threat, you assess likelihood and impact, determine your risk treatment — whether that is mitigate, accept, transfer, or avoid — and document the residual risk. The Statement of Applicability must reference the guest WiFi risk assessment as the justification for including or excluding specific Annex A controls. Let's talk about WPA3 and authentication standards. The IEEE 802.11ax and 802.11be generations of WiFi hardware support WPA3, which provides Simultaneous Authentication of Equals — SAE — replacing the older Pre-Shared Key handshake. For a guest network where you are using a shared passphrase, WPA3-Personal with SAE provides forward secrecy, meaning that even if the passphrase is compromised, historical session traffic cannot be decrypted. For enterprise deployments where you want per-user authentication, WPA3-Enterprise with IEEE 802.1X and EAP-TLS provides certificate-based authentication that maps directly to ISO 27001 identity management controls. The choice between these two models depends on your user population and your operational complexity tolerance. Now, vendor SOC 2 attestations. If you are using a cloud-managed guest WiFi platform — and most organisations are — that vendor's SOC 2 Type II report is a critical piece of your supplier assurance evidence. A SOC 2 Type II report covers the Trust Services Criteria: Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy, over an audit period of typically six to twelve months. When you are building your ISO 27001 supplier assurance file, the vendor's SOC 2 Type II report, combined with a completed supplier security questionnaire and a data processing agreement, gives you a defensible evidence pack for control A.8.21. Purple, for instance, carries SOC 2 alignment that directly supports this downstream ISMS requirement — meaning you can reference their attestation in your own audit evidence rather than conducting a full bespoke security assessment of the platform. --- SEGMENT 3: IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND PITFALLS (approx. 2 minutes) Let me give you the four implementation decisions that most organisations get wrong. First: scope creep in the risk assessment. Organisations either scope the guest WiFi too narrowly — treating it as out of scope because it is just for visitors — or too broadly, attempting to apply every possible control regardless of relevance. The correct approach is to scope it as an information asset that is in scope for the ISMS, conduct a proportionate risk assessment, and document your control selection rationale in the Statement of Applicability. Second: inadequate network segmentation. I have seen guest VLANs that are technically separate but share a firewall zone with internal systems, or where the management interface of the wireless controller is accessible from the guest segment. Segmentation needs to be verified with a penetration test or at minimum a network access review, and that verification needs to be documented as audit evidence. Third: ignoring the captive portal as an access control mechanism. The captive portal is not just a branding exercise. It is the point at which you present your Acceptable Use Policy, obtain consent for data processing, and create the authentication log that serves as evidence for multiple ISO 27001 controls. If your captive portal is not logging acceptance events with timestamps and session identifiers, you have a gap that an auditor will find. Fourth: treating supplier assurance as a one-time exercise. SOC 2 reports expire. ISP contracts change. Cloud platform terms of service are updated. Your supplier assurance programme needs to include annual review of vendor security attestations, and that review needs to be documented. Set a calendar reminder for when each vendor's SOC 2 report period ends and request the updated report proactively. On the question of session timeouts: ISO 27001 does not prescribe specific timeout values, but your risk assessment should document the rationale for whatever value you choose. A session timeout of eight hours is common in hospitality, but a conference centre running a one-day event might set a shorter timeout to ensure that credentials are not shared across attendees. The key principle is that the timeout policy is documented, risk-justified, and consistently implemented. Purple's platform, for example, allows you to configure and enforce session timeout policies centrally, with the configuration state exportable as audit evidence. --- SEGMENT 4: RAPID-FIRE Q&A (approx. 1 minute) Let me run through the questions I get most frequently from IT managers preparing for ISO 27001 certification. Does guest WiFi have to be in scope for our ISMS? If it processes, stores, or transmits information that falls within your ISMS scope, yes. If guests authenticate using any personal data, or if the network connects to any systems that are in scope, it must be included. Can we exclude guest WiFi from the Statement of Applicability? You can exclude controls, but you must document the justification. Excluding A.8.22 Segregation of Networks for a guest WiFi deployment would require a very compelling argument that the auditor is unlikely to accept. What is the minimum viable evidence pack for a guest WiFi audit? Network diagram showing VLAN segregation, firewall ruleset, captive portal configuration with acceptable use policy text, authentication log sample, risk assessment entry, and vendor SOC 2 report or equivalent assurance document. How does GDPR interact with ISO 27001 for guest WiFi? GDPR is a legal requirement that feeds into control A.5.31. Your privacy notice, data processing agreement with your WiFi platform vendor, and data retention policy are all ISO 27001 evidence items as well as GDPR compliance artefacts. They serve double duty. --- SEGMENT 5: SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS (approx. 1 minute) To bring this together: guest WiFi is not a peripheral concern for your ISMS — it is a live network boundary with real risk exposure and a clear set of applicable ISO 27001:2022 controls. The controls that matter most are A.8.22 for network segregation, A.8.20 for network security management, A.8.21 for supplier assurance, A.8.15 for logging, A.8.23 for web filtering, A.5.14 for acceptable use, and A.5.31 for legal compliance. Your immediate next steps: first, confirm that guest WiFi is explicitly included in your ISMS scope statement. Second, add a guest WiFi entry to your risk register with documented threats, likelihood, impact, and treatment decisions. Third, build your evidence pack — network diagram, firewall rules, captive portal configuration, logging policy, and vendor SOC 2 report. Fourth, schedule an annual supplier assurance review for your WiFi platform provider. If you are deploying or upgrading your guest WiFi infrastructure, Purple's platform is built with these compliance requirements in mind — SOC 2 aligned, with centralised policy management and exportable configuration evidence that feeds directly into your ISMS documentation. Thank you for joining the Purple Technical Briefing. For the full written guide, architecture diagrams, and worked examples, visit the Purple resource centre. Until next time.

header_image.png

Resumen Ejecutivo

Para recintos empresariales —ya sea un hotel de 500 habitaciones, una cadena minorista multisitio o un estadio de 50.000 asientos—, el Guest WiFi rara vez se trata con el mismo rigor de gobernanza que la LAN corporativa. Sin embargo, bajo la ISO 27001:2022, una red inalámbrica de cara al público es un activo de información vivo que se cruza con el límite de su red, las relaciones con los proveedores y las obligaciones legales. Esta guía traduce los requisitos teóricos de un Sistema de Gestión de Seguridad de la Información (SGSI) en resultados prácticos de ingeniería y cumplimiento para las implementaciones de Guest WiFi .

Al tratar la red de invitados no como un servicio básico, sino como un segmento auditado, los líderes de TI pueden mitigar los riesgos de movimiento lateral, garantizar el cumplimiento normativo y producir evidencia definitiva para los auditores principales. Esta guía detalla los controles específicos del Anexo A aplicables a las implementaciones inalámbricas, describe la metodología de evaluación de riesgos requerida y explica cómo construir un paquete de evidencia de auditoría defendible, ahorrando cientos de horas durante los ciclos de certificación.

Análisis Técnico Detallado: Mapeo de los Controles ISO 27001 a la Arquitectura WiFi

ISO 27001:2022 reestructuró sus controles del Anexo A en cuatro temas. Para las redes inalámbricas de invitados, los requisitos críticos residen principalmente en los dominios Tecnológico y Organizacional. Comprender cómo estos controles se traducen en configuraciones de red es la base del cumplimiento.

iso27001_controls_map.png

Segregación y Seguridad de la Red (Controles A.8.20 y A.8.22)

El requisito fundamental para cualquier red de invitados es un aislamiento estricto. El Control A.8.22 (Segregación de Redes) exige que los grupos de servicios de información estén segregados. En términos prácticos, esto requiere implementar VLANs dedicadas para el tráfico de invitados que estén lógica (y cuando sea necesario, físicamente) separadas de las subredes corporativas, los sistemas de punto de venta (POS) y los dispositivos IoT de gestión de edificios.

Junto con el Control A.8.20 (Seguridad de Redes), este aislamiento debe aplicarse mediante reglas de firewall robustas y Listas de Control de Acceso (ACLs). Un auditor esperará ver configuraciones que denieguen explícitamente el enrutamiento desde la VLAN de invitados a cualquier espacio IP interno RFC 1918. Si un probador de penetración en el SSID de invitados puede acceder a la interfaz de gestión de una pasarela de Sensores o a un recurso compartido de archivos corporativo, constituye una no conformidad importante.

Aseguramiento de Proveedores y Plataformas en la Nube (Control A.8.21)

El Guest WiFi moderno depende en gran medida de los proveedores de servicios gestionados y de los Captive Portal alojados en la nube. El Control A.8.21 (Seguridad de los Servicios de Red) establece que estas relaciones con los proveedores deben regirse por requisitos de seguridad. Aquí es donde las certificaciones de los proveedores se vuelven críticas. En lugar de realizar una auditoría a medida de una plataforma WiFi en la nube, las organizaciones deben confiar en el informe SOC 2 Tipo II del proveedor. Plataformas como Purple cumplen con SOC 2, proporcionando una garantía independiente sobre sus controles de seguridad, disponibilidad y privacidad. Esta documentación se incorpora directamente a su archivo de aseguramiento de proveedores del SGSI.

Registro, Filtrado y Transferencia de Información (Controles A.8.15, A.8.23, A.5.14)

La visibilidad y el control sobre el tráfico de invitados están exigidos por varios controles superpuestos. El Control A.8.15 (Registro) requiere la retención de eventos de conexión y registros de autenticación. Sin embargo, esto debe equilibrarse con los principios de minimización de datos. El Captive Portal sirve como mecanismo principal para el Control A.5.14 (Transferencia de Información), donde los invitados deben aceptar una Política de Uso Aceptable (AUP) antes de que se les conceda el acceso.

Además, el Control A.8.23 (Filtrado Web) requiere la implementación de filtrado basado en DNS o proxies en la nube para bloquear dominios maliciosos e infraestructura de comando y control, protegiendo tanto la reputación de la red como los dispositivos conectados a ella.

Guía de Implementación: Construyendo el Paquete de Evidencia de Auditoría

Implementar la tecnología es solo la mitad de la batalla; demostrarlo a un auditor es la otra. Los siguientes pasos describen cómo traducir las configuraciones técnicas en un paquete de evidencia ISO 27001 defendible.

audit_evidence_workflow.png

Paso 1: Formalizar la Evaluación de Riesgos

El SGSI debe incluir una evaluación formal de riesgos específicamente para el activo de Guest WiFi. Esto debe documentar amenazas como el movimiento lateral no autorizado, la propagación de malware y el agotamiento del ancho de banda. Para cada amenaza, documente la probabilidad, el impacto y el tratamiento de riesgo elegido (por ejemplo, mitigar mediante aislamiento de VLAN y aislamiento de cliente). La Declaración de Aplicabilidad (SoA) debe hacer referencia a esta evaluación como justificación para seleccionar controles como A.8.22 y A.8.23.

Paso 2: Exportar Configuraciones como Evidencia

Los auditores requieren evidencia puntual de las configuraciones. Genere un diagrama de red completo que etiquete claramente la VLAN de invitados y sus límites. Exporte el conjunto de reglas del firewall que demuestre las reglas de denegación explícita para el enrutamiento interno. Si utiliza una plataforma en la nube, exporte la configuración del Captive Portal mostrando el punto de control de aceptación obligatoria de la AUP. Para obtener orientación sobre cómo equilibrar la experiencia del usuario con estos puntos de control de seguridad, revise nuestra guía sobre Tiempos de espera de sesión de Guest WiFi: Equilibrando UX y Seguridad .

Paso 3: Establecer la Cadencia de Revisión de Proveedores

El aseguramiento de proveedores no es una actividad única. Establezca un calendario para revisiones anuales de su ISP y proveedores de portal en la nube. Solicite sus informes SOC 2 Tipo II actualizados y documente una revisión formal de estos informes por parte de la dirección. Si el proveedorLa auditoría destaca cualquier excepción; documente cómo esas excepciones impactan su propia postura de riesgo.

Mejores prácticas para recintos empresariales

La implementación de WiFi para invitados conforme en entornos complejos como Hostelería o centros de Transporte requiere la adhesión a las mejores prácticas neutrales del proveedor que satisfagan tanto las demandas de seguridad como las operativas.

  1. Aplicar el aislamiento de clientes: A nivel del punto de acceso, habilite el aislamiento de clientes (a veces llamado aislamiento de AP o modo invitado). Esto evita que los dispositivos conectados al mismo SSID se comuniquen directamente entre sí, mitigando los ataques peer-to-peer y la propagación de malware.
  2. Implementar una gestión de sesiones robusta: Configure tiempos de espera de sesión forzados que requieran reautenticación. Para un entorno minorista, un tiempo de espera de 12 horas puede ser apropiado; para un aeropuerto, un tiempo de espera de 4 horas asegura que las sesiones abandonadas se terminen. Esto limita la ventana de oportunidad para direcciones MAC secuestradas.
  3. Alinear con las regulaciones de privacidad de datos: Asegúrese de que la recopilación de datos de su captive portal se alinee con las leyes de privacidad locales (p. ej., GDPR). Solo recopile los datos necesarios para el servicio o para los cuales tenga un consentimiento explícito y documentado. Esto apoya directamente el Control A.5.31 (Requisitos Legales).

Resolución de problemas y mitigación de riesgos

Incluso con una arquitectura robusta, puede producirse una desviación del cumplimiento. El modo de fallo más común es la 'expansión del alcance' (scope creep), donde la red de invitados se excluye por completo del alcance del SGSI (lo que lleva a fallos en la auditoría) o se sobredimensiona (aplicando controles internos innecesarios a los dispositivos de los invitados).

Otro problema frecuente es la degradación de la segmentación de la red. Las actualizaciones de firmware o los cambios de red de emergencia pueden alterar inadvertidamente el enrutamiento de VLAN. Para mitigar esto, implemente la monitorización automatizada de la configuración o programe revisiones manuales trimestrales del conjunto de reglas del firewall que rige el segmento de invitados. Si gestiona múltiples sitios distribuidos, considere las ventajas de cumplimiento de las redes de área amplia modernas; nuestra visión general de Los beneficios clave de SD WAN para empresas modernas explora cómo la aplicación centralizada de políticas reduce la complejidad de la auditoría.

ROI e impacto empresarial

Invertir en el cumplimiento de ISO 27001 para el WiFi de invitados ofrece un valor empresarial medible más allá de simplemente pasar una auditoría. Una infraestructura inalámbrica segura y conforme protege la reputación de la marca del recinto al evitar que la red sea utilizada como base para la ciberdelincuencia.

Además, al aprovechar una plataforma alineada con SOC 2 que integra WiFi Analytics , los recintos pueden extraer de forma segura valor comercial de los datos de afluencia de público, manteniendo una estricta adhesión a los controles de privacidad y seguridad de los datos. La reducción en el tiempo de preparación de auditorías —a menudo ahorrando docenas de horas de ingeniería anualmente al confiar en la evidencia exportable de la plataforma— proporciona un ROI operativo directo.

Informe de audio

Para una explicación detallada de estos conceptos, escuche nuestro podcast de informe técnico de 10 minutos:

Términos clave y definiciones

VLAN Segregation

The logical separation of a physical network into distinct broadcast domains, preventing traffic from one segment from reaching another without passing through a routed firewall.

Critical for satisfying ISO 27001 Control A.8.22, ensuring guest devices cannot access corporate or operational technology systems.

Client Isolation

A wireless network setting that prevents devices connected to the same Access Point or SSID from communicating directly with one another.

Used to mitigate peer-to-peer attacks and malware spread on public networks, supporting Control A.8.20.

SOC 2 Type II

An independent audit report that evaluates a service organisation's controls related to security, availability, and privacy over a specified period (usually 6-12 months).

The primary evidence used by IT teams to satisfy Control A.8.21 (Security of Network Services) for cloud-hosted WiFi platforms.

Statement of Applicability (SoA)

A mandatory ISO 27001 document that lists all Annex A controls, stating whether each is applied or excluded, along with the justification.

The SoA must explicitly reference the guest WiFi risk assessment to justify the inclusion of network segregation and filtering controls.

Captive Portal

A web page that a user of a public access network is obliged to view and interact with before access is granted.

Serves as the technical enforcement point for Acceptable Use Policies and privacy consent, generating the logs required for Control A.8.15.

Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)

A set of rules applied by the owner of a network that restrict the ways in which the network may be used.

Required evidence for Control A.5.14, demonstrating that guests have been informed of their obligations before transferring data.

WPA3-Personal (SAE)

The modern wireless security protocol that uses Simultaneous Authentication of Equals to provide forward secrecy, protecting session traffic even if the shared password is known.

The recommended security standard for shared-passphrase guest networks to ensure baseline encryption of the wireless medium.

Risk Treatment

The process of selecting and implementing measures to modify risk, typically categorised as mitigate, accept, transfer, or avoid.

IT managers must document how they treat the risks associated with guest WiFi (e.g., mitigating lateral movement via firewalls) within the ISMS.

Casos de éxito

A 400-room hotel group needs to deploy guest WiFi across three properties. The IT Director wants to keep the guest network out of the ISO 27001 ISMS scope to save time. Is this permissible, and what are the architectural requirements if it is included?

Excluding the guest network from the ISMS scope is highly risky if the physical infrastructure (switches, APs, internet circuits) is shared with the corporate network, or if guest authentication captures personal data (bringing it under A.5.31 Legal Requirements). The correct approach is to include it in scope but apply proportionate controls. Architecturally, the hotel must implement strict VLAN segregation (Control A.8.22), apply client isolation at the AP level, and route guest traffic directly to the internet via a firewall that explicitly denies access to the hotel's property management system (PMS) and corporate subnets.

Notas de implementación: This approach satisfies the auditor by acknowledging the asset while avoiding over-engineering. By relying on VLANs and firewall rules, the hotel demonstrates Control A.8.20 (Networks Security) without attempting to manage the endpoints themselves.

During an internal audit of a retail chain's WiFi, the auditor notes that the cloud-based captive portal provider has not been assessed for security in over two years. How should the network architect remediate this nonconformity against Control A.8.21?

The architect must immediately request the latest SOC 2 Type II report from the captive portal provider. Upon receipt, the architect should formally review the report, noting the auditor's opinion and any exceptions listed in the Trust Services Criteria. This review must be documented, signed off by management, and filed in the ISMS supplier assurance repository. A recurring calendar event should be established to request this report annually.

Notas de implementación: This demonstrates a mature supplier assurance process. Leveraging third-party attestations like SOC 2 is the most efficient way to satisfy A.8.21 for cloud services, avoiding the need for unscalable bespoke security questionnaires.

Análisis de escenarios

Q1. You are preparing for an ISO 27001 surveillance audit. The auditor asks for evidence that the guest WiFi network is secure from internal threats. What three specific artifacts should you provide?

💡 Sugerencia:Think about architecture, policy enforcement, and supplier management.

Mostrar enfoque recomendado
  1. A network diagram and firewall ruleset proving VLAN segregation (Control A.8.22). 2) Captive portal logs showing guests accepting the Acceptable Use Policy (Control A.5.14). 3) The latest SOC 2 Type II report from your cloud WiFi platform provider (Control A.8.21).

Q2. A stadium operations director wants to disable the captive portal to 'speed up entry' and just use an open network with no terms of service. As the Information Security Manager, how do you respond using ISO 27001 principles?

💡 Sugerencia:Consider the legal and logging implications of an unmanaged open network.

Mostrar enfoque recomendado

You must advise against this, as it violates Control A.5.14 (Information Transfer) by removing the Acceptable Use Policy checkpoint, and compromises Control A.8.15 (Logging) by removing the ability to tie sessions to an authentication event. Furthermore, it increases the venue's legal exposure under Control A.5.31 if the network is used for illicit purposes without a documented terms of service.

Q3. Your guest WiFi risk assessment identifies 'Access to malicious websites' as a high risk. You decide to implement DNS filtering. How do you document this in the ISMS?

💡 Sugerencia:Link the threat to the specific Annex A control and the SoA.

Mostrar enfoque recomendado

Update the Risk Register to show the threat is treated by implementing DNS filtering. In the Statement of Applicability (SoA), mark Control A.8.23 (Web Filtering) as 'Applicable', citing the risk assessment as the justification, and reference the DNS filtering configuration as the implementation evidence.