Security of Network Services

To meet the HITRUST “Security of Network Services” requirement, you must document the security features, service levels, and management requirements for every network service you rely on, and then bake them into a formal agreement (internal or third-party) that clearly assigns security responsibilities and performance expectations ¹. Operationally, this is a contract-and-controls exercise tied to how your networks are actually run.

Key takeaways:

• Maintain an inventory of network services and map each to an agreement with defined security and performance requirements ¹.
• Make responsibilities explicit (who secures what, who monitors what, who responds to what) for both in-house and outsourced services ¹.
• Keep auditable evidence: signed agreements, service descriptions, monitoring outputs, incident coordination procedures, and review records ¹.

“Security of Network Services” sounds like a technical control, but in HITRUST CSF v11 09.n it is mainly a governance requirement: you must formally define how network services are secured, managed, and measured, and ensure those definitions live inside the agreements that govern the services ¹. Auditors will look for two things: (1) you know which network services exist and which business systems depend on them, and (2) each service is governed by terms that assign clear security responsibilities and performance requirements.

This requirement applies whether your network services are delivered by internal infrastructure teams (internal “agreements” and operational level objectives still count) or by third parties (contracts, MSAs, SOWs, SLAs, and security addenda) ¹. If you have a managed firewall, SD-WAN, ISP, cloud network backbone, DDoS service, DNS, VPN/ZTNA, or any outsourced monitoring of network devices, you are in scope.

The fastest path to compliance is to standardize your “network services agreement” template, map it to each service in your inventory, and then close gaps by updating contract language or internal OLAs, not by writing broad policies that never get enforced.

Regulatory text

HITRUST CSF v11 09.n requires that: “Security features, service levels, and management requirements of all network services shall be identified and included in any network services agreement, whether these services are provided in-house or outsourced. Network service agreements shall define security responsibilities and performance requirements.” ¹

What the operator must do

You must be able to point to each network service and show an agreement (external contract or internal service agreement) that includes:

• Security features (the controls the service provides and must maintain)
• Service levels (availability, support responsiveness, maintenance expectations, escalation)
• Management requirements (monitoring, change management, patching, configuration control, reporting)
• Defined responsibilities (your org vs the service owner/third party)
• Performance requirements (how performance is measured and what happens if it fails)

Plain-English interpretation

Every network service is part of your security boundary. HITRUST wants you to stop treating network services as “just plumbing” and instead manage them like regulated dependencies. If something routes traffic, resolves names, filters packets, terminates VPN, provides connectivity, or monitors network devices, you need written terms that define:

• What security capabilities must exist (and stay enabled)
• Who is accountable for configuration, logs, patching, and incident response
• What “good” looks like (service levels and performance expectations)
• How you prove it (records and reporting)

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

Entities: All organizations implementing HITRUST CSF ¹.

Operational contexts typically in scope:

• In-house network services: internal WAN/LAN operations, internal firewall platforms, internal DNS/DHCP, internal VPN, internal network monitoring.
• Outsourced/third-party network services: ISPs, MPLS/SD-WAN providers, managed firewalls, managed detection/monitoring of network devices, cloud connectivity, DDoS protection, hosted DNS, ZTNA, VPN concentrator hosting.
• Hybrid: cloud provider network constructs managed by you but dependent on third-party backbone and service terms.

If the service supports regulated data flows (for many HITRUST programs, that includes health data environments), treat it as high scrutiny even if the contract is “standard.”

What you actually need to do (step-by-step)

1) Build a network services inventory that is agreement-ready

Create a list that ties each service to an owner and an agreement artifact. Minimum fields:

• Service name and type (ISP, DNS, managed firewall, SD-WAN, etc.)
• Delivery model (in-house vs third party)
• Business/system dependencies (what breaks if it’s down)
• Service owner (internal) and provider (if third party)
• Agreement reference (contract/OLA) and renewal date
• Where monitoring and logs live
• Primary support channel and escalation path

Practical tip: If you already maintain an application inventory, add a “network dependencies” section to capture DNS, VPN/ZTNA, and connectivity dependencies. Auditors like traceability.

2) Standardize a “Network Services Agreement” requirements checklist

Create a checklist that you can apply to both external contracts and internal OLAs. Include, at minimum:

Security features (define what must be in place)

• Authentication/access control expectations for management interfaces
• Encryption expectations for admin access and remote access
• Logging/telemetry expectations and log access/retention responsibilities
• Vulnerability/patch expectations for managed devices
• Configuration hardening baseline and exception handling

Service levels

• Support hours and response targets
• Maintenance windows and change notice expectations
• Restoration targets and escalation ladder

Management requirements

• Who performs monitoring and what gets monitored
• Change management coordination (approvals, emergency change handling)
• Reporting cadence (service reporting, security reporting, incident reporting)
• Subcontractor controls if the provider uses additional third parties

Responsibilities and performance

• RACI-style responsibility split: your org vs provider vs shared
• Performance metrics you will actually review (not just “best efforts”)

This checklist becomes your control backbone for procurement and renewals.

3) Update agreements (third-party) or OLAs (in-house) to match reality

For third-party services, ensure contract packages include:

• MSA + SOW/Order Form + SLA + Security Addendum (or equivalent)
• A clear statement of security responsibilities and what the provider must maintain

For in-house services, document:

• An internal OLA or service catalog entry
• Operational expectations, security responsibilities, and measurable performance requirements

Common operator move: If Legal resists adding security terms to the MSA, place them in a Security Addendum referenced by the MSA, and map that addendum to the network service order forms.

4) Operationalize: connect agreement terms to monitoring and governance

This requirement fails when agreements exist but nobody checks them. Tie “paper” to operations:

• Map each SLA/performance requirement to a monitoring source (NMS, SIEM dashboards, provider portal reports).
• Define who reviews service performance reports and where results are recorded.
• Define how incident coordination works (who calls whom, what gets reported, timelines you commit to contractually).

5) Put a review mechanism on rails

Set a recurring review trigger tied to:

• Contract renewal cycles
• Significant network changes (new sites, new cloud environments, major architecture shifts)
• Material incidents (outages, security events involving network services)

Record the review outcome: “no change,” “contract update needed,” “control gap accepted with rationale,” or “provider remediation required.”

6) Make it scalable with workflow (where Daydream fits)

If you manage more than a handful of network service providers, the bottleneck becomes tracking agreements, security addenda, and evidence. Daydream can serve as the system to centralize third-party records, map each network service to required contract clauses and evidence, and generate audit-ready exports without scrambling across Legal, IT, and procurement inboxes.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Auditors usually want to sample a subset of services. Have a clean evidence package per service:

Core artifacts

• Network services inventory (with owners and agreement references)
• Executed agreement (contract/OLA) covering the service
• SLA and/or performance requirements document
• Security addendum or contract security clauses (if third party)
• Responsibility matrix (RACI) or clearly written responsibility sections in the agreement

Operational proof

• Monitoring reports or screenshots showing performance tracking aligned to SLA
• Incident runbook / escalation procedure for the service
• Change management records for material network service changes
• Meeting notes or ticket records showing periodic service review

Governance proof

• Contract review/approval workflow evidence (Procurement/Legal/Security)
• Exceptions and risk acceptances tied to specific service terms, if any

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect variations of:

• “Show me your list of network services and the agreement for each.”
• “Where are security responsibilities defined for your ISP / managed firewall / hosted DNS?”
• “How do you verify the provider is meeting service levels?”
• “Which team reviews network service performance, and where is it documented?”
• “If the provider has an incident, what are notification expectations and escalation steps?”

Hangups that trigger findings:

• Only having an MSA with generic language and no service-specific SLA/security requirements.
• Treating in-house services as “no contract needed,” with no internal OLA or service catalog requirements documented.
• SLAs exist but there is no evidence of review or response when targets are missed.

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

1. Inventory misses “small” network services (DNS, certificate/PKI services that support network auth, remote access brokers).
   Fix: Define “network services” broadly in your inventory SOP and require architecture review sign-off for completeness.

2. Responsibilities are implied, not written.
   Fix: Put a short responsibility matrix into the agreement package. If shared responsibility exists, say exactly what “shared” means.

3. Security features described in marketing terms, not enforceable terms.
   Fix: Write requirements as obligations (“Provider will…”) and tie them to deliverables (reports, logs, attestations, support).

4. SLA language exists but no internal owner is accountable.
   Fix: Assign a named service owner and require periodic checks recorded in a ticket or GRC workflow.

5. Contracts are updated at renewal only, leaving multi-year exposure.
   Fix: Add an addendum mechanism for mid-term security changes when risk warrants it.

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for this requirement. Practically, the risk shows up during assessments and audits as a governance failure: unclear responsibility boundaries cause delayed incident response, inconsistent logging, poor change control, and preventable outages. This is also a third-party risk issue: without contractual clarity, you may not be able to compel evidence, remediation, or timely notifications.

A practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days: get to “auditable basics”

• Identify all network services and owners; build the inventory.
• Collect current agreements/OLAs for each service and identify missing documents.
• Create a network services agreement checklist (security features, service levels, management requirements, responsibilities, performance requirements) aligned to HITRUST language ¹.
• Pick the highest-risk services (connectivity, perimeter controls, remote access, DNS) for immediate gap closure.

Next 60 days: close agreement gaps and connect to operations

• Update templates: security addendum, SLA exhibit, internal OLA format.
• Execute amendments or side letters for critical third-party services where responsibilities or SLAs are unclear.
• Define monitoring sources for each SLA and assign who reviews them.
• Publish incident escalation procedures per service and test contact paths.

Next 90 days: make it repeatable

• Embed the checklist into Procurement and Security review gates for new/renewing network services.
• Stand up a recurring service review rhythm with recorded outcomes.
• Centralize evidence packages per service (contracts, addenda, reports, review notes) in a system that supports audits and renewals (Daydream can act as the control and evidence hub).

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this requirement apply to in-house network services if there’s no external contract?

Yes. HITRUST expects a “network services agreement” even for in-house services, which can be an internal OLA or service catalog entry that defines security responsibilities and performance requirements ¹.

What counts as a “network service” for scoping?

Treat any service that provides connectivity, routing, name resolution, perimeter control, remote access, or network monitoring as in scope. If loss or compromise of the service affects system availability or data flow, include it.

Our provider won’t change their standard MSA. How do we comply?

Put required security features, service levels, and responsibilities into an addendum or exhibit that is incorporated by reference into the MSA and applies to the specific network service order ¹.

Do we need to define exact uptime numbers in every SLA?

You need defined service levels and performance requirements, but they should match how you manage the service. If you cannot negotiate provider SLAs, document what they commit to, your internal expectations, and your contingency plans.

What evidence is most commonly requested in a HITRUST assessment?

Assessors usually ask for the network services inventory, executed agreements (or OLAs), SLA/security exhibits, and proof you review performance and coordinate incidents based on those terms ¹.

How do we handle shared responsibility for cloud networking?

Write it down in service-specific terms. Specify which party handles configuration, logging access, monitoring, incident triage, and change approvals for cloud network components tied to the service.

Footnotes

1. HITRUST CSF v11 Control Reference