+Unsupported Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS)
---+Alternate Sources for Continued Support
|
Unsupported Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS)
Description
Mechanisms exist to prevent unsupported Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) by:
(1) Removing and/or replacing TAAS when support for the components is no longer available from the developer, vendor or manufacturer; and
(2) Requiring justification and documented approval for the continued use of unsupported TAAS required to satisfy mission/business needs.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
∙ Computer Lifecycle Program (CLP)
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
∙ Computer Lifecycle Program (CLP)
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
∙ Computer Lifecycle Program (CLP)
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
∙ Computer Lifecycle Program (CLP)
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
∙ Computer Lifecycle Program (CLP)
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TDA domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Technology development & acquisition-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Secure development practices loosely conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
▪ An application development team, or similar function, provides in-house support or contract external providers for support with unsupported system components.
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to prevent unsupported Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) by:
(1) Removing and/or replacing TAAS when support for the components is no longer available from the developer, vendor or manufacturer; and
(2) Requiring justification and documented approval for the continued use of unsupported TAAS required to satisfy mission/business needs.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
1. Přehled
| Název |
Standard |
|
Alternate Sources for Continued Support
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to provide in-house support or contract external providers for support with unsupported Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide in-house support or contract external providers for support with unsupported Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
1.1 Odkazy
1.2 Identifikované požadavky
1.3 Související regulace
2. Identifikované požadavky
Požadavky
| Zdroj |
Požadavek |
3. Související regulace
Regulace
| Zdroj |
Regulace |
|
EULAW
|
Článek 4 Politika správy aktiv v oblasti IKT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 8 Politiky a postupy pro operace IKT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 34 Bezpečnost operací IKT
Článek 34
Finanční subjekty uvedené v čl. 16 odst. 1 nařízení (EU) 2022/2554 v rámci svých systémů, protokolů a nástrojů a pro všechna aktiva v oblasti IKT:
a)
sledují a řídí životní cyklus všech aktiv v oblasti IKT;
b)
sledují, zda jsou aktiva v oblasti IKT případně podporována poskytovateli služeb IKT z řad třetích stran finančních subjektů;
c)
určují požadavky na kapacitu svých aktiv v oblasti IKT a opatření k udržení a zlepšení dostupnosti a účinnosti systémů IKT a předcházení nedostatku kapacity IKT dříve, než se projeví;
d)
provádějí automatické skenování a posuzování zranitelnosti aktiv v oblasti IKT úměrně jejich klasifikaci podle čl. 30 odst. 1 a celkovému rizikovému profilu aktiv v oblasti IKT a provádějí opravy za účelem odstranění zjištěných zranitelností;
e)
řídí rizika spojená se zastaralými, nepodporovanými nebo původními aktivy v oblasti IKT;
f)
protokolují události související s řízením logického a fyzického přístupu, s operacemi IKT, včetně činností v systému a v síti, a s řízením změn v oblasti IKT;
g)
určují a zavádějí opatření pro monitorování a analýzu informací o neobvyklých aktivitách a chování u zásadních nebo důležitých operací IKT;
h)
zavádějí opatření ke sledování relevantních a aktuálních informací o kybernetických hrozbách;
i)
provádějí opatření k identifikaci možných úniků informací, škodlivých kódů a dalších bezpečnostních hrozeb a veřejně známých zranitelností softwaru a hardwaru a kontrolují, zda existují odpovídající nové bezpečnostní aktualizace.
Pro účely písmene f) musí finanční subjekty přizpůsobit míru podrobnosti protokolů jejich účelu a způsobu používání aktiva v oblasti IKT, které tyto protokoly vytváří.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 34 Bezpečnost operací IKT
Článek 34
Finanční subjekty uvedené v čl. 16 odst. 1 nařízení (EU) 2022/2554 v rámci svých systémů, protokolů a nástrojů a pro všechna aktiva v oblasti IKT:
a)
sledují a řídí životní cyklus všech aktiv v oblasti IKT;
b)
sledují, zda jsou aktiva v oblasti IKT případně podporována poskytovateli služeb IKT z řad třetích stran finančních subjektů;
c)
určují požadavky na kapacitu svých aktiv v oblasti IKT a opatření k udržení a zlepšení dostupnosti a účinnosti systémů IKT a předcházení nedostatku kapacity IKT dříve, než se projeví;
d)
provádějí automatické skenování a posuzování zranitelnosti aktiv v oblasti IKT úměrně jejich klasifikaci podle čl. 30 odst. 1 a celkovému rizikovému profilu aktiv v oblasti IKT a provádějí opravy za účelem odstranění zjištěných zranitelností;
e)
řídí rizika spojená se zastaralými, nepodporovanými nebo původními aktivy v oblasti IKT;
f)
protokolují události související s řízením logického a fyzického přístupu, s operacemi IKT, včetně činností v systému a v síti, a s řízením změn v oblasti IKT;
g)
určují a zavádějí opatření pro monitorování a analýzu informací o neobvyklých aktivitách a chování u zásadních nebo důležitých operací IKT;
h)
zavádějí opatření ke sledování relevantních a aktuálních informací o kybernetických hrozbách;
i)
provádějí opatření k identifikaci možných úniků informací, škodlivých kódů a dalších bezpečnostních hrozeb a veřejně známých zranitelností softwaru a hardwaru a kontrolují, zda existují odpovídající nové bezpečnostní aktualizace.
Pro účely písmene f) musí finanční subjekty přizpůsobit míru podrobnosti protokolů jejich účelu a způsobu používání aktiva v oblasti IKT, které tyto protokoly vytváří.
|
Propojené úkoly
- Secure Controls Framework -
"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.
Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.
The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/
Terms & Conditions
The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
|