+Cryptographic Cipher Suites and Protocols Inventory

Cryptographic Cipher Suites and Protocols Inventory

Description

Mechanisms exist to identify, document and review deployed cryptographic cipher suites and protocols to proactively respond to industry trends regarding the continued viability of utilized cryptographic cipher suites and protocols.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Use TLS 1.2+ and disable weak ciphers on web services (e.g., SSL Labs test)

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Inventory of TLS/cipher configurations for external services
∙ Annual review against current guidance (e.g., NIST SP 800-52)

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Cipher suite and protocol inventory maintained via scanning (e.g., Qualys SSL Labs, Nessus)
∙ Annual review and deprecation of weak algorithms

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Cryptographic governance program
∙ Automated cryptographic discovery and inventory
∙ Cipher suite standards updated for industry trends (e.g., PQC readiness)

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise cryptographic inventory platform (e.g., Keyfactor, Venafi, IBM Guardium Quantum Safe)
∙ Cipher suite governance with proactive deprecation
∙ Integration with QTS crypto-agility program

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

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Cryptographic management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Cryptographic management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternate to physical safeguards.

Level 3 Well Defined

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool).
▪ 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 CRY 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 identify, document and review deployed cryptographic cipher suites and protocols to proactively respond to industry trends regarding the continued viability of utilized cryptographic cipher suites and protocols.

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

Název Standard

1.1 Odkazy

1.2 Identifikované požadavky

1.3 Související regulace

2. Identifikované požadavky

Požadavky
Zdroj Požadavek

3. Související regulace

Regulace
Zdroj Regulace

Propojené úkoly

Vazby
Typ vazby Úkol
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Data
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector)
blocks Revenue Loss
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Loss of Competitive Advantage
blocks Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Traffic Duplication
blocks Network Sniffing
blocks Proxy
blocks Domain Fronting
blocks Application Access Token
blocks Web Session Cookie
blocks Container API
blocks Adversary-in-the-Middle
blocks Name Resolution Poisoning and SMB Relay
blocks ARP Cache Poisoning
blocks DHCP Spoofing
blocks Evil Twin
blocks Data from Configuration Repository
blocks SNMP (MIB Dump)
blocks Network Device Configuration Dump
blocks Debugger Evasion
is related to Semi-Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Long-Term Confidentiality Loss from Cryptographic Obsolescence
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
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 Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Harvest Now / Decrypt Later (HNDL)
blocks Cryptographic Compromise / Cryptanalytic Capability Advancement
blocks CRY-03.01B
blocks CRY-03.02B
is blocked by CRY-04 Cryptographic Cipher Suites and Protocols Inventory – Assessment Procedure
blocks 03.13.11 Cryptographic Protection
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "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.