Skip to main content

ISO 27001 Guest WiFi : Un précis de conformité

Cette référence technique faisant autorité met en correspondance les déploiements de Guest WiFi directement avec les contrôles ISO 27001:2022, détaillant les exigences en matière de segmentation réseau, de journalisation et de traitement des risques. Elle fournit des orientations concrètes aux responsables informatiques et aux architectes réseau sur la manière de générer des preuves prêtes pour l'audit et de tirer parti des attestations SOC 2 des fournisseurs pour satisfaire aux exigences d'assurance des fournisseurs de l'ISMS.

📖 5 min de lecture📝 1,160 mots🔧 2 exemples3 questions📚 8 termes clés

🎧 Écouter ce guide

Voir la transcription
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

Résumé Exécutif

Pour les entreprises – qu'il s'agisse d'un hôtel de 500 chambres, d'une chaîne de magasins multi-sites ou d'un stade de 50 000 places – le Guest WiFi est rarement traité avec la même rigueur de gouvernance que le LAN d'entreprise. Cependant, selon la norme ISO 27001:2022, un réseau sans fil public est un actif informationnel vivant qui recoupe la limite de votre réseau, les relations avec les fournisseurs et les obligations légales. Ce précis traduit les exigences théoriques d'un Système de Management de la Sécurité de l'Information (SMSI) en résultats pratiques d'ingénierie et de conformité pour les déploiements de Guest WiFi .

En traitant le réseau invité non pas comme un service de base mais comme un segment audité, les responsables informatiques peuvent atténuer les risques de mouvement latéral, assurer la conformité réglementaire et produire des preuves définitives pour les auditeurs principaux. Ce guide détaille les contrôles spécifiques de l'Annexe A applicables aux déploiements sans fil, décrit la méthodologie d'évaluation des risques requise et explique comment constituer un dossier de preuves d'audit défendable, permettant d'économiser des centaines d'heures pendant les cycles de certification.

Approfondissement technique : Cartographie des contrôles ISO 27001 à l'architecture WiFi

L'ISO 27001:2022 a restructuré ses contrôles de l'Annexe A en quatre thèmes. Pour les réseaux sans fil invités, les exigences critiques résident principalement dans les domaines technologique et organisationnel. Comprendre comment ces contrôles se traduisent en configurations réseau est le fondement de la conformité.

iso27001_controls_map.png

Segmentation et sécurité du réseau (Contrôles A.8.20 et A.8.22)

L'exigence fondamentale pour tout réseau invité est une isolation stricte. Le Contrôle A.8.22 (Ségrégation des réseaux) exige que les groupes de services d'information soient ségrégués. En termes pratiques, cela nécessite le déploiement de VLAN dédiés pour le trafic invité, logiquement (et si nécessaire, physiquement) séparés des sous-réseaux d'entreprise, des systèmes de point de vente (POS) et des dispositifs IoT de gestion des bâtiments.

Associée au Contrôle A.8.20 (Sécurité des réseaux), cette isolation doit être appliquée via des ensembles de règles de pare-feu robustes et des listes de contrôle d'accès (ACL). Un auditeur s'attendra à voir des configurations qui refusent explicitement le routage du VLAN invité vers tout espace IP interne RFC 1918. Si un testeur d'intrusion sur le SSID invité peut atteindre l'interface de gestion d'une passerelle Sensors ou un partage de fichiers d'entreprise, cela constitue une non-conformité majeure.

Assurance des fournisseurs et plateformes cloud (Contrôle A.8.21)

Le Guest WiFi moderne repose fortement sur les fournisseurs de services gérés et les portails captifs hébergés dans le cloud. Le Contrôle A.8.21 (Sécurité des services réseau) stipule que ces relations avec les fournisseurs doivent être régies par des exigences de sécurité. C'est là que les attestations des fournisseurs deviennent critiques. Au lieu de mener un audit sur mesure d'une plateforme WiFi cloud, les organisations devraient s'appuyer sur le rapport SOC 2 Type II du fournisseur. Des plateformes comme Purple sont alignées SOC 2, offrant une assurance indépendante sur leurs contrôles de sécurité, de disponibilité et de confidentialité. Cette documentation alimente directement votre dossier d'assurance des fournisseurs de l'ISMS.

Journalisation, filtrage et transfert d'informations (Contrôles A.8.15, A.8.23, A.5.14)

La visibilité et le contrôle du trafic invité sont imposés par plusieurs contrôles qui se chevauchent. Le Contrôle A.8.15 (Journalisation) exige la conservation des événements de connexion et des journaux d'authentification. Cependant, cela doit être équilibré avec les principes de minimisation des données. Le portail captif sert de mécanisme principal pour le Contrôle A.5.14 (Transfert d'informations), où les invités doivent accepter une Politique d'Utilisation Acceptable (PUA) avant que l'accès ne soit accordé.

De plus, le Contrôle A.8.23 (Filtrage Web) nécessite le déploiement d'un filtrage basé sur DNS ou de proxys cloud pour bloquer les domaines malveillants et l'infrastructure de commande et de contrôle, protégeant ainsi la réputation du réseau et les appareils qui y sont connectés.

Guide d'implémentation : Constitution du dossier de preuves d'audit

Mettre en œuvre la technologie n'est que la moitié de la bataille ; le prouver à un auditeur est l'autre moitié. Les étapes suivantes décrivent comment traduire les configurations techniques en un dossier de preuves ISO 27001 défendable.

audit_evidence_workflow.png

Étape 1 : Formaliser l'évaluation des risques

Le SMSI doit inclure une évaluation formelle des risques spécifiquement pour l'actif Guest WiFi. Celle-ci doit documenter les menaces telles que le mouvement latéral non autorisé, la propagation de logiciels malveillants et l'épuisement de la bande passante. Pour chaque menace, documentez la probabilité, l'impact et le traitement des risques choisi (par exemple, atténuer via l'isolation VLAN et l'isolation client). La Déclaration d'Applicabilité (SoA) doit faire référence à cette évaluation comme justification de la sélection de contrôles tels que A.8.22 et A.8.23.

Étape 2 : Exporter les configurations comme preuves

Les auditeurs exigent des preuves ponctuelles des configurations. Générez un diagramme réseau complet étiquetant clairement le VLAN invité et ses limites. Exportez l'ensemble de règles du pare-feu démontrant les règles de refus explicites pour le routage interne. Si vous utilisez une plateforme cloud, exportez la configuration du portail captif montrant le point de contrôle obligatoire d'acceptation de la PUA. Pour des conseils sur l'équilibre entre l'expérience utilisateur et ces points de contrôle de sécurité, consultez notre guide sur Guest WiFi Session Timeouts : Équilibrer l'UX et la sécurité .

Étape 3 : Établir la cadence de révision des fournisseurs

L'assurance des fournisseurs n'est pas une activité ponctuelle. Établissez un calendrier pour les examens annuels de votre FAI et de vos fournisseurs de portails cloud. Demandez leurs rapports SOC 2 Type II mis à jour et documentez un examen formel de ces rapports par la direction. Si le fournisseurL'audit met en évidence toute exception, documentez comment ces exceptions impactent votre propre posture de risque.

Bonnes pratiques pour les sites d'entreprise

Le déploiement d'un WiFi invité conforme dans des environnements complexes tels que les pôles Hôtellerie ou Transport exige le respect de bonnes pratiques indépendantes des fournisseurs qui satisfont à la fois les exigences de sécurité et opérationnelles.

  1. Appliquer l'isolation des clients : Au niveau du point d'accès, activez l'isolation des clients (parfois appelée isolation AP ou mode invité). Cela empêche les appareils connectés au même SSID de communiquer directement entre eux, atténuant ainsi les attaques peer-to-peer et la propagation de logiciels malveillants.
  2. Mettre en œuvre une gestion robuste des sessions : Configurez des délais d'expiration de session forcés qui nécessitent une réauthentification. Pour un environnement de vente au détail, un délai d'expiration de 12 heures peut être approprié ; pour un aéroport, un délai d'expiration de 4 heures garantit la fin des sessions abandonnées. Cela limite la fenêtre d'opportunité pour les adresses MAC détournées.
  3. S'aligner sur les réglementations en matière de confidentialité des données : Assurez-vous que la collecte de données de votre Captive Portal est conforme aux lois locales sur la confidentialité (par exemple, GDPR). Ne collectez que les données nécessaires au service ou pour lesquelles vous avez un consentement explicite et documenté. Cela soutient directement le Contrôle A.5.31 (Exigences légales).

Dépannage et atténuation des risques

Même avec une architecture robuste, des écarts de conformité peuvent survenir. Le mode de défaillance le plus courant est le « glissement de périmètre » (scope creep) — où le réseau invité est soit entièrement exclu du périmètre de l'ISMS (entraînant des échecs d'audit), soit sur-périmétré (appliquant des contrôles internes inutiles aux appareils invités).

Un autre problème fréquent est la dégradation de la segmentation du réseau. Les mises à jour de firmware ou les modifications de réseau d'urgence peuvent modifier par inadvertance le routage VLAN. Pour atténuer cela, mettez en œuvre une surveillance automatisée de la configuration ou planifiez des examens manuels trimestriels de l'ensemble des règles de pare-feu régissant le segment invité. Si vous gérez plusieurs sites distribués, considérez les avantages en matière de conformité des réseaux étendus modernes ; notre aperçu des Avantages clés du SD WAN pour les entreprises modernes explore comment l'application centralisée des politiques réduit la complexité de l'audit.

ROI et impact commercial

Investir dans la conformité ISO 27001 pour le WiFi invité offre une valeur commerciale mesurable au-delà du simple fait de réussir un audit. Une infrastructure sans fil sécurisée et conforme protège la réputation de la marque du site en empêchant l'utilisation du réseau comme terrain d'action pour la cybercriminalité.

De plus, en tirant parti d'une plateforme alignée sur SOC 2 qui intègre WiFi Analytics , les sites peuvent extraire en toute sécurité de la valeur commerciale des données de fréquentation tout en maintenant une stricte adhésion aux contrôles de confidentialité et de sécurité des données. La réduction du temps de préparation à l'audit — économisant souvent des dizaines d'heures d'ingénierie par an en s'appuyant sur des preuves de plateforme exportables — offre un ROI opérationnel direct.

Briefing audio

Pour une présentation détaillée de ces concepts, écoutez notre podcast de briefing technique de 10 minutes :

Termes clés et définitions

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.

Études de cas

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.

Notes de mise en œuvre : 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.

Notes de mise en œuvre : 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.

Analyse de scénario

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?

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

Afficher l'approche recommandée
  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?

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

Afficher l'approche recommandée

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?

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

Afficher l'approche recommandée

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.

ISO 27001 Guest WiFi : Un précis de conformité | Technical Guides | Purple