+Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks
|
Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks
Description
Cryptographic mechanisms exist to implement strong cryptography and security protocols to safeguard sensitive and/or regulated data during transmission over open, public networks.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Use HTTPS/TLS for all internet-facing communications
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ TLS for all internet traffic ∙ No unencrypted protocols over public networks
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Encryption-in-transit standards ∙ TLS 1.2+ enforcement ∙ Certificate management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise encryption-in-transit program ∙ TLS 1.3 enforcement ∙ Certificate lifecycle management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise encryption governance program ∙ TLS 1.3+ ∙ Certificate management platform (e.g., Venafi) ∙ Automated certificate monitoring
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
Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data are protected using a cryptographic mechanism to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN). ▪ Wireless access is protected via secure authentication and encryption.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data use a cryptographic mechanism to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN).
Level 3 Well Defined
Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational cryptographic capability exists to implement strong cryptography and security protocols to safeguard sensitive/regulated data during transmission over open, public networks.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
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
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 13 Řízení bezpečnosti sítí
Článek 13
Finanční subjekty v rámci ochranných opatření zajišťujících bezpečnost sítí proti vniknutí a zneužití údajů vypracují, zdokumentují a zavedou politiky, postupy, protokoly a nástroje pro řízení bezpečnosti sítí, včetně všech následujících prvků:
a)
oddělení a segmentace systémů a sítí IKT s ohledem na:
i)
zásadnost nebo důležitost funkce, kterou tyto systémy a sítě IKT podporují;
ii)
klasifikaci stanovenou v souladu s čl. 8 odst. 1 nařízení (EU) 2022/2554;
iii)
celkový rizikový profil aktiv v oblasti IKT využívajících tyto systémy a sítě IKT;
b)
dokumentace všech síťových připojení a datových toků finančního subjektu;
c)
používání oddělené a vyhrazené sítě pro správu aktiv v oblasti IKT;
d)
stanovení a provádění kontrol přístupu k síti, aby se zabránilo tomu, že se k síti finančního subjektu připojí jakékoli neschválené zařízení nebo systém nebo jakýkoli koncový bod, který nesplňuje bezpečnostní požadavky finančního subjektu;
e)
šifrování síťových spojení procházejících podnikovými sítěmi, veřejnými sítěmi, domácími sítěmi, sítěmi třetích stran a bezdrátovými sítěmi pro používané komunikační protokoly s přihlédnutím k výsledkům schválené klasifikace dat, výsledkům posouzení rizik v oblasti IKT a šifrování síťových spojení podle čl. 6 odst. 2;
f)
koncepce sítí v souladu s požadavky na bezpečnost IKT stanovenými finančním subjektem s přihlédnutím k osvědčeným postupům pro zajištění důvěrnosti, integrity a dostupnosti sítě;
g)
zabezpečení síťového provozu mezi interními sítěmi a internetem a dalšími externími připojeními;
h)
stanovení úloh a povinností a kroků pro specifikaci, provádění, schvalování, změnu a revizi pravidel brány firewall a filtrů připojení;
i)
přezkumy architektury sítě a návrhu zabezpečení sítě prováděné jednou za rok a pravidelně u mikropodniků, aby se zjistily potenciální zranitelnosti;
j)
opatření pro případnou dočasnou izolaci dílčích sítí a síťových komponent a zařízení;
k)
zavedení základní úrovně bezpečné konfigurace všech síťových komponent a zabezpečení („hardening“) sítě a síťových zařízení v souladu s pokyny dodavatele, případně s normami definovanými v čl. 2 bodě 1 nařízení (EU) č. 1025/2012 a s osvědčenými postupy;
l)
postupy pro omezení, uzamčení a ukončení systémových a vzdálených relací po určité době nečinnosti;
m)
v případě smluv o síťových službách:
i)
určení a specifikace opatření v oblasti bezpečnosti IKT a informací, úrovní služeb a požadavků na řízení všech síťových služeb;
ii)
to, zda tyto služby poskytuje poskytovatel služeb IKT v rámci skupiny nebo poskytovatelé služeb IKT z řad třetích stran.
Pro účely písmene h) provádějí finanční subjekty pravidelný přezkum pravidel brány firewall a filtrů připojení v souladu s klasifikací stanovenou podle čl. 8 odst. 1 nařízení (EU) 2022/2554 a s celkovým rizikovým profilem příslušných systémů IKT. U systémů IKT, které podporují zásadní nebo důležité funkce, musí finanční subjekty ověřovat přiměřenost stávajících pravidel brány firewall a filtrů připojení nejméně jednou za šest měsíců.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 14 Zabezpečení informací během přenosu
-
|
Propojené úkoly
Vazby
| Typ vazby |
Úkol |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 08 |
|
is related to
|
Technology |
|
is related to
|
Protect |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Access |
|
blocks
|
Identity Compromise / Impersonation |
|
blocks
|
Data Loss / Integrity Compromise |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Intellectual Property / Trade Secret Loss |
|
blocks
|
Incident Response / Recovery Cost |
|
blocks
|
Long-Term Confidentiality Loss from Cryptographic Obsolescence |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authenticity / Provenance |
|
blocks
|
Privacy Harm / Unauthorized Processing |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Product Defect / Design Failure |
|
blocks
|
Harvest Now / Decrypt Later (HNDL) |
|
blocks
|
Cryptographic Compromise / Cryptanalytic Capability Advancement |
|
blocks
|
CRY-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
COS-08.01B |
|
blocks
|
COS-08.02B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-07.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-07.01AS |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Access |
|
blocks
|
Identity Compromise / Impersonation |
|
blocks
|
Data Loss / Integrity Compromise |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Intellectual Property / Trade Secret Loss |
|
blocks
|
Incident Response / Recovery Cost |
|
blocks
|
Long-Term Confidentiality Loss from Cryptographic Obsolescence |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authenticity / Provenance |
|
blocks
|
Privacy Harm / Unauthorized Processing |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Product Defect / Design Failure |
|
blocks
|
Harvest Now / Decrypt Later (HNDL) |
|
blocks
|
Cryptographic Compromise / Cryptanalytic Capability Advancement |
|
blocks
|
CRY-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
COS-08.01B |
|
blocks
|
COS-08.02B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-07.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-07.01AS |
|
is blocked by
|
NET-37 Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
AC-02 Account Management |
|
blocks
|
AC-03 Access Enforcement |
|
blocks
|
AC-05 Separation of Duties |
|
blocks
|
SI-03 Malicious Code Protection |
|
blocks
|
SI-04 System Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
SI-07 Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity |
|
blocks
|
SI-10 Information Input Validation |
|
blocks
|
AC-02 [L] Account Management |
|
blocks
|
AC-03 [L] Access Enforcement |
|
blocks
|
SI-03 [L] Malicious Code Protection |
|
blocks
|
SI-04 [L] System Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 [L] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
AC-02 [M] Account Management |
|
blocks
|
AC-03 [M] Access Enforcement |
|
blocks
|
AC-05 [M] Separation of Duties |
|
blocks
|
SI-03 [M] Malicious Code Protection |
|
blocks
|
SI-04 [M] System Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 [M] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
SI-07 [M] Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity |
|
blocks
|
SI-10 [M] Information Input Validation |
|
blocks
|
AC-02 [H] Account Management |
|
blocks
|
AC-03 [H] Access Enforcement |
|
blocks
|
AC-05 [H] Separation of Duties |
|
blocks
|
SI-03 [H] Malicious Code Protection |
|
blocks
|
SI-04 [H] System Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 [H] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
SI-07 [H] Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity |
|
blocks
|
SI-10 [H] Information Input Validation |
- 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.
|