AC-18 (03) Disable Wireless Networkingac-18.3
Whether an AWS call fetches evidence for this control, and what to run. Its Rev5 baselines, the indicators that reach it and the FedRAMP guidance attached to it open below.
Nothing names itNo recipe names AC-18 (03). 3 reach an indicator it shares, which is adjacency and not coverage — worth reading, not worth recording as evidence for this control.
Collect evidence (0)
Authored AWS and pipeline recipes whose output is evidence for AC-18 (03). This mapping is this project’s opinion (AWS overlay v3.0.0, pipeline overlay v0.8.0), versioned separately from the dataset — the upstream FedRAMP rules name none of these tools.
No authored recipe names AC-18 (03). The nearest authored work is below.
Nobody has assessed AC-18 (03) against AWS and pipeline yet. That is a gap in this project’s research — not a finding about the control, and not a claim that nothing collects it.
The KSI that reaches it is KSI-CNA-MAT — that is where the authoring would land. Browse /collect for the whole authored corpus.
Reaches the same indicator, not AC-18 (03)
These recipes prove a KSI that reaches it. None of them claims AC-18 (03) — treat them as neighbours worth reading, not as coverage.
- Every route in or out of the boundary, named and counted — internet gateways, NAT gateways, VPC endpoints and Site-to-Site VPN tunnels — alongside what each boundary device does with traffic that matched no rule: the network ACL entries, the closed default security group, subnets that hand out public IPs, and the firewall policy's stateless and stateful default actions via KSI-CNA-MATaws
- Which taint-tracking ruleset actually ran over this repository — the query suite, the languages selected, and the threat model that decides what counts as an untrusted source — together with whether the recurring scan is still scheduled, when it last ran per analysed language, and how many rules were in the run; and then the open findings in the injection families SI-10 is about, identified by the CWE tags the queries carry. The ruleset and the freshness are the load-bearing half: a finding names a sink that exists, but only the run record says the absence of findings means anything at all. via KSI-CNA-MATpipeline
- Whether the queries that find information disclosure through an error message or a stack trace ran over this part of the boundary — which languages were selected, whether the recurring scan is still scheduled and when it last completed — and then the open findings those queries produced, identified by the CWE tags the queries carry rather than by their names. The run record is the load-bearing half here as it is on every scanning recipe: a finding names a leak that exists, and only the record of a scan having run over a selected language makes the absence of findings a statement about anything. via KSI-CNA-MATpipeline
What NIST requires of AC-18 (03)
The control statement from NIST 800-53 Rev5, verbatim. Square brackets are organization-defined parameters — yours to set, not FedRAMP's to dictate.
Disable, when not intended for use, wireless networking capabilities embedded within system components prior to issuance and deployment.
NIST SP 800-53 Rev5 catalog 5.2.0, from usnistgov/oscal-content at 78650f0. The FedRAMP dataset carries no control text; this is borrowed and pinned.
Rev5 baseline membership
Membership is the whole relationship — a baseline is a set of control ids. Class A carries no baseline at all. The Low/Moderate/High labels are an interpretation from control counts, not a dataset fact.
KSI indicators reaching this control (1)
Under 20x, these indicators are how this control is demonstrated — automated KSI evidence stands in for narrative control evidence.
Pages exist for the 209 controls reached by at least one KSI. Baseline-only controls are the orphans on /coverage. Control titles and full text live in the NIST catalog, not this dataset.