Why M-26-14 Makes Network Visibility a Federal Priority

OMB memorandum M-26-14 replaces M-21-31, but it does more than update an earlier federal logging policy. It shows that agencies are now expected to take a more active approach to defending against cyber threats.

M-21-31 helped raise the logging baseline across government. M-26-14 builds on that progress by pushing agencies toward a more risk-based approach that connects logging, network visibility, and incident response more directly.

That matters because many of the most important security questions are not answered fully by logs alone. When teams investigate lateral movement, validate segmentation, or reconstruct an incident, they need to see which systems communicated, over which protocols, under what conditions, and with what application context. Strong logging still matters, but agencies also need visibility into how data moves across the network.

Why Logging Alone Is Not Enough

Modern federal environments are hybrid, distributed, and noisy. Agencies may already collect logs from endpoints, cloud services, and applications. Those sources remain essential, but they do not fully show what traversed the network between users, workloads, services, and unmanaged assets.

This gap becomes more serious when attackers use standard protocols in suspicious ways or move laterally through environments where internal logging is weak, incomplete, or missing. In those moments, the network becomes a critical source of truth.

Why Network Visibility Matters for Federal Agencies

The network is one of the few places where every user, workload, and attacker leaves evidence.

Traditional flow records can show who talked to whom, over which port, and in what volume. That’s useful, but many investigations now require more context, including:

Application identity beyond port-based assumptions

DNS behavior and response patterns

TLS versions, ciphers, and certificate details

East–West (lateral) communication patterns

OT and IoT protocol activity

That’s where application-aware network telemetry becomes operationally significant. It helps agencies move beyond summaries and toward a clearer view of what’s actually happening across data in motion.

What Gigamon Application Metadata Intelligence Adds

Gigamon Application Metadata Intelligence, or AMI, turns packets into application-aware metadata across physical, virtual, cloud, and hybrid environments.

That helps organizations move beyond flow summaries and gain a clearer view of what’s happening on the wire. In practice, that helps agencies:

See how data actually moves through the environment

Reveal East–West activity and lateral movement

Verify encryption and protocol posture

Extend visibility to OT, IoT, and unmanaged assets

Improve incident reconstruction

How AMI Fits Into the Broader Telemetry Stack

Think of AMI as a complementary telemetry layer. As such, it doesn’t replace identity systems, endpoint detection and response tools, application-native audit logs, or platforms such as SIEM, SOAR, NDR, or data lakes.

Instead, it strengthens them by providing a packet-derived, application-aware view of communications that many of those systems do not natively provide on their own.

In other words, AMI does not replace the broader telemetry stack, it makes that stack better.

Why M-26-14 Changes the Approach

M-26-14 emphasizes logging that supports detection, hunting, investigation, and resilience. Network-derived telemetry directly supports those outcomes by improving:

Session and communication visibility

Threat hunting pivots

Attack-path visibility

Forensic reconstruction

Segmentation validation

To put it simply: logging and visibility cannot be separated.

For agencies modernizing their security architecture in response to evolving threats, the path forward is not more disconnected telemetry. Instead, it’s a better telemetry mix, with the network treated as a first-class source of truth.

CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION

People are talking about this in the Gigamon Community’s Security group.

Share your thoughts today