Definition
Access mediation is the process of granting or denying specific requests to: 1) obtain and use information and related information processing services; and 2) enter specific physical facilities (e.g., Federal buildings, military establishments, border crossing entrances). Access mediation decisions should enforce least privilege by granting access for scoped durations to prevent privilege creep and, where applicable, implement just-in-time (JIT) access. Denial decisions may prevent initial access or terminate access that has already been granted, ensuring continuous enforcement of security policies.
Implementation perspective
Access Mediation should be treated as a technical defensive capability rather than a product checkbox. In practice, teams should define the protected scope, the conditions under which the technique acts, and the observable evidence that demonstrates the intended behavior. For this technique, likely engineering context includes Credential, File, I/O Module, Input Device.
Use the technique to create a logical or physical boundary that limits access, execution, communication, or movement.
Questions to ask
- What is being isolated, from whom or what, and under which conditions?
- Which flows or operations remain explicitly allowed across the boundary?
- What happens when the isolation mechanism fails or loses policy context?
- How is the boundary tested for alternate paths, bypasses, and unintended dependencies?
Evidence and validation
- Architecture and data-flow diagrams showing the isolation boundary
- Policy, rule, or configuration exports from enforcing components
- Tests of allowed, denied, and failure-state behavior
- Monitoring evidence for boundary violations and policy changes
Common failure patterns
- The intended boundary has undocumented alternate paths or inherited trust relationships.
- Rules accumulate without ownership, review, or removal of obsolete exceptions.
- Isolation is assumed from network location while application, identity, or management paths remain open.
This implementation perspective is original Bare Metal Cyber educational content. It does not replace the official D3FEND definition or establish that a specific product implements the technique.
Technique hierarchy
Top-level family
Parent techniques
None listed at this level.
Artifacts and ontology entities
These relationships describe how D3FEND connects a defensive technique to artifacts or other ontology entities. They describe graph semantics, not a product certification.
Show inferred artifact relationship paths (12)
Offensive-technique relationships
These relationships are generated from D3FEND graph paths and are explicitly experimental. They should be treated as hypotheses for defensive analysis—not as proof that the technique prevents, detects, or removes an offensive behavior.
ATT&CK Enterprise (167)
Showing the first 60 of 167 source-derived relationships. Open the official D3FEND technique for the current graph view.
ATT&CK for ICS (32)
Authoritative sources
- Open this technique on the official D3FEND website ↗
- Open the official ontology resources ↗
- Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS) Glossary ↗Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS) · GuidelineReference
- Related source ↗
- Related source ↗
- Related source ↗
- Related source ↗
Bare Metal Cyber is an independent educational publisher and is not affiliated with or endorsed by The MITRE Corporation. MITRE D3FEND™ and the D3FEND logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE ATT&CK® and ATT&CK® are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Use of D3FEND source material is subject to the official Terms of Use.