Skip to main content

ISO 27001 Guest WiFi: Um Guia de Conformidade

Esta referência técnica autoritária mapeia as implementações de Guest WiFi diretamente aos controles da ISO 27001:2022, detalhando os requisitos de segregação de rede, registro de eventos (logging) e tratamento de riscos. Ela fornece orientação prática para gerentes de TI e arquitetos de rede sobre como gerar evidências prontas para auditoria e aproveitar as atestações SOC 2 de fornecedores para satisfazer os mandatos de garantia de fornecedores do ISMS.

📖 5 min de leitura📝 1,160 palavras🔧 2 exemplos3 perguntas📚 8 termos-chave

🎧 Ouça este Guia

Ver Transcrição
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

Resumo Executivo

Para locais corporativos — seja um hotel de 500 quartos, uma rede de varejo multi-site ou um estádio com 50.000 lugares — o Guest WiFi raramente é tratado com o mesmo rigor de governança que a LAN corporativa. No entanto, sob a ISO 27001:2022, uma rede sem fio pública é um ativo de informação ativo que se cruza com o limite da sua rede, relacionamentos com fornecedores e obrigações legais. Este guia traduz os requisitos teóricos de um Sistema de Gestão de Segurança da Informação (ISMS) em resultados práticos de engenharia e conformidade para implementações de Guest WiFi .

Ao tratar a rede de convidados não como um serviço de commodity, mas como um segmento auditado, os líderes de TI podem mitigar riscos de movimento lateral, garantir a conformidade regulatória e produzir evidências definitivas para os auditores líderes. Este guia detalha os controles específicos do Anexo A aplicáveis a implementações sem fio, descreve a metodologia de avaliação de risco necessária e explica como construir um pacote de evidências de auditoria defensável — economizando centenas de horas durante os ciclos de certificação.

Análise Técnica Aprofundada: Mapeando Controles ISO 27001 para a Arquitetura WiFi

A ISO 27001:2022 reestruturou seus controles do Anexo A em quatro temas. Para redes sem fio de convidados, os requisitos críticos residem principalmente nos domínios Tecnológico e Organizacional. Compreender como esses controles se traduzem em configurações de rede é a base da conformidade.

iso27001_controls_map.png

Segregação e Segurança de Rede (Controles A.8.20 e A.8.22)

O requisito fundamental para qualquer rede de convidados é o isolamento rigoroso. O Controle A.8.22 (Segregação de Redes) exige que grupos de serviços de informação sejam segregados. Em termos práticos, isso exige a implantação de VLANs dedicadas para o tráfego de convidados que sejam lógica (e, quando necessário, fisicamente) separadas das sub-redes corporativas, sistemas de ponto de venda (POS) e dispositivos IoT de gerenciamento de edifícios.

Juntamente com o Controle A.8.20 (Segurança de Redes), esse isolamento deve ser imposto por meio de conjuntos de regras de firewall robustos e Listas de Controle de Acesso (ACLs). Um auditor esperará ver configurações que neguem explicitamente o roteamento da VLAN de convidados para qualquer espaço IP interno RFC 1918. Se um testador de penetração no SSID de convidados puder alcançar a interface de gerenciamento de um gateway de Sensors ou um compartilhamento de arquivos corporativo, isso constitui uma não conformidade grave.

Garantia de Fornecedores e Plataformas em Nuvem (Controle A.8.21)

O Guest WiFi moderno depende fortemente de provedores de serviços gerenciados e portais cativos hospedados em nuvem. O Controle A.8.21 (Segurança de Serviços de Rede) dita que esses relacionamentos com fornecedores devem ser governados por requisitos de segurança. É aqui que as atestações de fornecedores se tornam críticas. Em vez de conduzir uma auditoria personalizada de uma plataforma WiFi em nuvem, as organizações devem confiar no relatório SOC 2 Tipo II do fornecedor. Plataformas como a Purple possuem alinhamento SOC 2, fornecendo garantia independente sobre seus controles de segurança, disponibilidade e privacidade. Esta documentação alimenta diretamente o seu arquivo de garantia de fornecedores do ISMS.

Registro de Eventos (Logging), Filtragem e Transferência de Informações (Controles A.8.15, A.8.23, A.5.14)

A visibilidade e o controle sobre o tráfego de convidados são exigidos por vários controles sobrepostos. O Controle A.8.15 (Registro de Eventos) exige a retenção de eventos de conexão e logs de autenticação. No entanto, isso deve ser equilibrado com os princípios de minimização de dados. O Captive Portal serve como o mecanismo principal para o Controle A.5.14 (Transferência de Informações), onde os convidados devem aceitar uma Política de Uso Aceitável (AUP) antes que o acesso seja concedido.

Além disso, o Controle A.8.23 (Filtragem Web) exige a implantação de filtragem baseada em DNS ou proxies em nuvem para bloquear domínios maliciosos e infraestrutura de comando e controle, protegendo tanto a reputação da rede quanto os dispositivos a ela conectados.

Guia de Implementação: Construindo o Pacote de Evidências de Auditoria

Implementar a tecnologia é apenas metade da batalha; prová-la a um auditor é a outra. As etapas a seguir descrevem como traduzir configurações técnicas em um pacote de evidências ISO 27001 defensável.

audit_evidence_workflow.png

Etapa 1: Formalizar a Avaliação de Risco

O ISMS deve incluir uma avaliação de risco formal especificamente para o ativo Guest WiFi. Isso deve documentar ameaças como movimento lateral não autorizado, propagação de malware e exaustão de largura de banda. Para cada ameaça, documente a probabilidade, o impacto e o tratamento de risco escolhido (por exemplo, mitigar via isolamento de VLAN e isolamento de cliente). A Declaração de Aplicabilidade (SoA) deve referenciar esta avaliação como a justificativa para a seleção de controles como A.8.22 e A.8.23.

Etapa 2: Exportar Configurações como Evidência

Auditores exigem evidências pontuais das configurações. Gere um diagrama de rede abrangente rotulando claramente a VLAN de convidados e seus limites. Exporte o conjunto de regras do firewall demonstrando as regras de negação explícita para roteamento interno. Se você estiver usando uma plataforma em nuvem, exporte a configuração do Captive Portal mostrando o ponto de verificação obrigatório de aceitação da AUP. Para orientação sobre como equilibrar a experiência do usuário com esses pontos de verificação de segurança, revise nosso guia sobre Guest WiFi Session Timeouts: Equilibrando UX e Segurança .

Etapa 3: Estabelecer a Cadência de Revisão de Fornecedores

A garantia de fornecedores não é uma atividade única. Estabeleça um calendário para revisões anuais de seus provedores de ISP e portal em nuvem. Solicite seus relatórios SOC 2 Tipo II atualizados e documente uma revisão formal da gerência desses relatórios. Se o fornecedorSe a auditoria destacar quaisquer exceções, documente como essas exceções impactam sua própria postura de risco.

Melhores Práticas para Locais Corporativos

A implantação de WiFi para convidados em conformidade em ambientes complexos como Hospitalidade ou centros de Transporte exige a adesão a melhores práticas neutras em relação a fornecedores que satisfaçam tanto as demandas de segurança quanto as operacionais.

  1. Impor Isolamento de Cliente: No nível do ponto de acesso, habilite o isolamento de cliente (às vezes chamado de isolamento de AP ou modo convidado). Isso impede que dispositivos conectados ao mesmo SSID se comuniquem diretamente entre si, mitigando ataques peer-to-peer e a propagação de malware.
  2. Implementar Gerenciamento Robusto de Sessões: Configure tempos limite de sessão forçados que exijam reautenticação. Para um ambiente de varejo, um tempo limite de 12 horas pode ser apropriado; para um aeroporto, um tempo limite de 4 horas garante que as sessões abandonadas sejam encerradas. Isso limita a janela de oportunidade para endereços MAC sequestrados.
  3. Alinhar com as Regulamentações de Privacidade de Dados: Garanta que a coleta de dados do seu Captive Portal esteja alinhada com as leis de privacidade locais (por exemplo, GDPR). Colete apenas os dados necessários para o serviço ou para os quais você tenha consentimento explícito e documentado. Isso apoia diretamente o Controle A.5.31 (Requisitos Legais).

Solução de Problemas e Mitigação de Riscos

Mesmo com uma arquitetura robusta, pode ocorrer desvio de conformidade. O modo de falha mais comum é o 'scope creep' (expansão do escopo) — onde a rede de convidados é totalmente excluída do escopo do ISMS (levando a falhas de auditoria) ou tem seu escopo excessivamente ampliado (aplicando controles internos desnecessários a dispositivos de convidados).

Outro problema frequente é a degradação da segmentação de rede. Atualizações de firmware ou alterações de rede de emergência podem inadvertidamente alterar o roteamento de VLAN. Para mitigar isso, implemente monitoramento automatizado de configuração ou agende revisões manuais trimestrais do conjunto de regras do firewall que governa o segmento de convidados. Se você estiver gerenciando vários sites distribuídos, considere as vantagens de conformidade das redes de longa distância modernas; nossa visão geral de Os Principais Benefícios da SD WAN para Empresas Modernas explora como a aplicação centralizada de políticas reduz a complexidade da auditoria.

ROI e Impacto nos Negócios

Investir na conformidade ISO 27001 para WiFi de convidados oferece valor de negócio mensurável além de simplesmente passar em uma auditoria. Uma infraestrutura sem fio segura e em conformidade protege a reputação da marca do local, impedindo que a rede seja usada como base para crimes cibernéticos.

Além disso, ao aproveitar uma plataforma alinhada com SOC 2 que integra WiFi Analytics , os locais podem extrair com segurança valor comercial dos dados de fluxo de pessoas, mantendo estrita adesão aos controles de privacidade e segurança de dados. A redução no tempo de preparação da auditoria — muitas vezes economizando dezenas de horas de engenharia anualmente ao depender de evidências de plataforma exportáveis — proporciona um ROI operacional direto.

Resumo em Áudio

Para uma análise detalhada desses conceitos, ouça nosso podcast de briefing técnico de 10 minutos:

Termos-Chave e Definições

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.

Estudos de Caso

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 Implementação: 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 Implementação: 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.

Análise de Cenário

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?

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

Mostrar Abordagem Recomendada
  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?

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

Mostrar Abordagem Recomendada

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?

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

Mostrar Abordagem Recomendada

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.