FSTEC Publishes 35-Point Network Perimeter Recommendations, Most Require No Spending
Russia's Federal Service for Technical and Export Control (FSTEC) published a set of non-mandatory recommendations titled "Recommendations on Protecting the Network Perimeter of Information (Automated) Systems" on 10 March 2026. The document analyzes successful external intrusions and provides a 35-point checklist for hardening network boundaries.
The guidance appears in the section for improving information infrastructure security and does not carry the legal weight of normative acts or the methodological documents made compulsory by paragraph 68 of Order No. 117. No deadlines or penalties are attached, yet the text is expected to influence post-incident reviews because it reflects attack paths regulators have observed in real cases.
The checklist is organized into eight sections: administration of perimeter devices (10 points), DDoS resilience (5 points), segmentation (5 points), configuration backup (6 points), vulnerability management (2 points), authentication and access (3 points), event logging (3 points), and incident response exercises (1 point). Four items require new purchases—WAF in attack-prevention mode, ZTNA, NAC, and SIEM—while five others depend on capabilities already present in the environment.
Twenty-six remaining points can be satisfied without additional spending. These include using separate air-gapped administrative workstations where possible, enforcing 15-character passwords with complexity rules on network devices when certificate authentication is unavailable, maintaining unique credentials per device, disabling HTTP and SNMP v1/v2 in favor of HTTPS and SNMP v3, documenting all perimeter assets, and performing quarterly restoration tests of configuration backups.
The document explicitly prohibits publishing management interfaces (SSH, RDP, VNC) on the perimeter or in the DMZ, administering core devices from user or external segments, and relying on legacy monitoring protocols. It also stresses compensating controls for end-of-support equipment that cannot be patched or decommissioned.
Sections on vulnerability management refer readers to four earlier FSTEC documents: the 25 November 2025 Protectedness Analysis Methodology, the 17 May 2023 Vulnerability Management Guide, the 28 October 2022 Update Testing Methodology, and the 30 June 2025 Criticality Assessment Methodology.
Related articles
Kubernetes Audit Policy Review: Checklist Targets Common Blind Spots in Rules
An experienced Kubernetes administrator shared a detailed review process for audit policies that often remain untouched for years after initial deployment. The 580-line policy was rebuilt using the Kubernetes Threat Matrix from RedGuard as the primary reference. The author highlights recurring issues such as outdated exceptions, missing coverage for new components, and legacy comments that obscure actual security intent. The resulting checklist focuses on principles rather than cluster-specific findings to help other teams perform effective policy audits. Key recommendations address rule completeness, exception management, and periodic full-scale reviews instead of incremental patching. The approach aims to restore audit policies as active security controls rather than accumulated technical debt.
Avoiding a Leaky Kubernetes Audit Policy: Real-World Configuration Breakdown
Kubernetes Audit Policy is typically configured once during cluster setup and then left untouched for years while accumulating exceptions for new components. Over time the policy stops functioning as a security control and instead becomes an archaeological layer of outdated comments such as "# temporary, TODO remove" that date back three years or more. The author recently reviewed their own 580-line configuration file that had been assembled from multiple sources. Primary reference was the Kubernetes Threat Matrix, which explains why many rules are designed to detect security-relevant actions rather than simply reduce log noise. Examples include targeted monitoring of RBAC modifications and deletion of events. The article emphasizes the need for periodic full reviews instead of incremental patching to maintain effective detection coverage.
CryptoPro Develops CryptoPro-Browser with Russian Cryptography for FSB Compliance
CryptoPro is creating its own browser called CryptoPro-Browser as part of the CryptoPro CSP 6.0 cryptographic information protection system. The product will include built-in cryptographic tools, support for the company's plugin, and TLS connections using Russian cryptographic algorithms. The development follows Google's removal of the CryptoPro extension from the Chrome Web Store in February 2025, which left new users without an easy installation method. The project has been coordinated with the FSB of Russia and targets scenarios requiring compliance with Russian information security regulations. CryptoPro plans to incorporate experience from its earlier Chromium-Gost project started in 2017, while also recommending Yandex Browser as an alternative. Analysts estimate the development cost at several tens of millions of rubles, with the main focus on corporate customers needing certificate management and specialized support.
Yandex 360 Email Archive Documentation Shows Search Snapshots and Former Employee Log Filters
The Yandex 360 administrator guide describes the email archive as a tool that stores copies of all messages sent and received by employees on the organization's domain. Two specific statements in the documentation indicate that each saved search returns a static snapshot that does not update automatically when new mail arrives, requiring manual cloning or recreation of the search to obtain current results. The same documentation states that the action log records every operation performed in the archive, yet the employee filter in the log interface only displays currently active accounts, making it impossible to select a former administrator by name. API 360 currently provides no documented endpoints for creating, executing, or retrieving archive searches, leaving all operations dependent on the web console. Additional notes clarify that messages remain available after an account is blocked but disappear once the account is deleted, and that messages removed before the archive was enabled cannot be recovered. These documented behaviors directly affect incident response and offboarding procedures that rely on historical email retrieval and audit trails.