# NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 MA-4(7) — Disconnect Verification

- Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/ma-4-7-disconnect-verification
- Section: [Compliance](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance) › [NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 Controls](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5) › MA — Maintenance
- Last updated: 2026-06-05
- Publisher: iCompaas, Inc. (https://www.icompaas.com)

**NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5**·Control `MA-4(7)`·high·Component: **Maintenance**

## What this control requires

> Verify the termination of sessions and network connections after nonlocal Maintenance and diagnostic sessions to ensure connections are closed and unavailable for unauthorized use. This control supports the Network Management System capability within the Maintenance family.
> 
> — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Control MA-4(7)

### In plain English

Verify the termination of sessions and network connections after nonlocal Maintenance and diagnostic sessions to ensure connections are closed and unavailable for unauthorized use. In practice, this means you can prove you security management-level controls on a defined cadence.

## Why it matters

SP 800-53 is the catalogue every U.S. federal authorisation (FedRAMP, FISMA, CMMC) and most regulated industries point at. A missing control surfaces as a Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M) item that an Authorizing Official must approve before the Authority To Operate is granted or renewed.

This control is rated **high**. Auditors expect a named owner, a remediation SLA, and a tooling artefact that evidences continuous operation.

## What an auditor looks for

A 3PAO (FedRAMP) or Independent Assessor (NIST RMF) tests against NIST SP 800-53A assessment procedures. For each control they expect a documented implementation that addresses every assessment objective (Examine, Interview, Test) and an implementation summary in the System Security Plan.

Within **Maintenance**, the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Control MA-4(7)) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles.

## How to implement

#### Cloud Posture

**CSPM.** Run Wiz / Prisma / Defender for Cloud / Security Command Center over every account; auto-ticket findings above your accepted-risk threshold.

#### Network Security

**AWS.** VPC Flow Logs to S3, default-deny security groups, AWS Network Firewall for north-south, and Transit Gateway for hub-and-spoke segmentation.

**Azure.** NSGs with deny-by-default, Azure Firewall Premium with TLS inspection, Private Endpoints for PaaS, and Microsoft Defender for Cloud's secure score for drift.

**GCP.** VPC Service Controls perimeters around sensitive APIs, Cloud NGFW Enterprise for L7 inspection, Private Service Connect for managed services.

#### Configuration Management

**Policy-as-code.** Codify the control as Service Control Policies (AWS), Azure Policy initiatives, or Organisation Policy (GCP) so the platform enforces what the document promises.

**IaC.** Gate Terraform / Pulumi / CloudFormation changes with Checkov / tfsec / OPA so misconfigurations never reach production.

**Drift.** Run a CSPM (Wiz / Prisma / Defender for Cloud / Security Command Center) over every account and route findings to a single risk register.

### Operational checklist

-   **Security.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Configuration.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Network.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Termination.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Maintenance.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Scope:** management, system, termination, configuration, maintenance, capability, nonlocal maintenance, verification.

## Evidence to collect

-   **Infra Scan.** Continuous infrastructure-posture telemetry — AWS Config, Azure Policy compliance, GCP Organisation Policy, Wiz / Prisma findings.

Infrastructure posture tooling (AWS Config, Azure Policy, Nessus) verifies platform hardening. Focus: Disconnect Verification.

## Common pitfalls

-   Treating CSPM findings as a backlog instead of a hot queue: findings older than the policy SLA accumulate until the auditor asks why.
-   Default-allow egress rules; East-West traffic with no segmentation; jump hosts on the public internet with password auth.
-   Manual cloud-console changes that never make it back to Terraform — drift accumulates until the next outage forces a reconciliation.

## How it maps to other frameworks

Computed from shared tags, control component and key-operation subjects — handy when you are reconciling controls across an audit.

-   [**NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 3 3.13.6** — Network Communications - Deny by Default - Allow by Exception](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-171-rev-3/3-13-6-network-communications-deny-by-default-allow-by-exception)
-   [**ISO/IEC 27001:2022 A.8.22** — Segregation of networks](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-27001-2022/a-8-22-segregation-of-networks)
-   [**BSI C5:2020 COS-04** — Cross-network access](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/bsi-c5-2020/cos-04-cross-network-access)

## Related controls in NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5

-   [**Control SC-10** — Network Disconnect](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sc-10-network-disconnect)
-   [**Control CM-2(2)** — Automation Support For Accuracy And Currency](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/cm-2-2-automation-support-for-accuracy-and-currency)
-   [**Control SC-7(5)** — Deny By Default -- Allow By Exception](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sc-7-5-deny-by-default-allow-by-exception)
-   [**Control SC-7(8)** — Route Traffic To Authenticated Proxy Servers](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sc-7-8-route-traffic-to-authenticated-proxy-servers)
-   [**Control SC-7(16)** — Prevent Discovery Of System Components](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sc-7-16-prevent-discovery-of-system-components)
-   [**Control SC-7(22)** — Separate Subnets For Connecting To Different Security Domains](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5/sc-7-22-separate-subnets-for-connecting-to-different-security-domains)

## References

-   [NIST Computer Security Resource Center — NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/risk-management/sp800-53-controls)
-   Catalogue identifier: `Control MA-4(7)`

Topics: network securitycloud postureconfiguration management

## Related compliance guidance

- [NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5: a practical implementation guide for cloud teams](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-53-rev-5): Start with the full NIST SP 800-53 implementation guide — scope, roadmap, evidence and how the assessment runs.
- [NIST SP 800-171 and CMMC: a practical guide to protecting CUI in the cloud](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/nist-sp-800-171-rev-3): If your obligation is protecting CUI in your own systems for a federal or defence contract, this derived subset — not the full catalogue — is the requirement.
- [SOC 2 compliance: a practical implementation guide for cloud-native SaaS teams](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria): Most commercial SaaS already hold a SOC 2 Type 2, and FedRAMP 20x Class A is designed for providers that have one.