+Chain of Custody & Forensics
---+Licensed Forensic Investigators
|
Chain of Custody & Forensics
Description
Mechanisms exist to perform digital forensics and maintain the integrity of the chain of custody, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and industry-recognized secure practices.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.com)
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 perform digital forensics and maintain the integrity of the chain of custody, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and industry-recognized secure practices.
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 |
|
Licensed Forensic Investigators
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize licensed forensic investigators to perform data analysis for evidentiary purposes that may be used in legal proceedings or to prove wrongdoing.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ For eDiscovery, IT and/or cybersecurity personnel manually identify and collect Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in order to respond to a request from a lawsuit or investigation.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ Incident responders are proficient on their specific IRP role(s) and responsibilities through recurring training events (e.g., annual rock drill).
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 utilize licensed forensic investigators to perform data analysis for evidentiary purposes that may be used in legal proceedings or to prove wrongdoing.
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.
|
1.1 Odkazy
1.2 Identifikované požadavky
1.3 Související regulace
2. Identifikované požadavky
Požadavky
| Zdroj |
Požadavek |
3. Související regulace
Regulace
| Zdroj |
Regulace |
|
EULAW
|
Článek 13 2
2. Finanční subjekty zavedou přezkumy po incidentech souvisejících s IKT poté, co závažný incident související s IKT naruší jejich hlavní činnosti, přičemž analyzují příčiny narušení a určí potřebná zlepšení operací IKT nebo v rámci politiky zachování provozu IKT uvedené v článku 11.
Finanční subjekty, jiné než mikropodniky, na žádost sdělí příslušným orgánům změny, které byly provedeny v návaznosti na přezkumy incidentů souvisejících s IKT uvedené v prvním pododstavci.
Přezkumy po incidentech souvisejících s IKT podle prvního pododstavce stanoví, zda byly dodrženy zavedené postupy a zda byla přijatá opatření účinná, a to i ve vztahu k:
|
a)
|
rychlosti reakce na bezpečnostní výstrahy a stanovení dopadu incidentů souvisejících s IKT a jejich závažnosti;
|
|
b)
|
kvalitě a rychlosti provádění forenzní analýzy, je-li to považováno za vhodné;
|
|
c)
|
efektivitě eskalace incidentů v rámci finančního subjektu;
|
|
d)
|
efektivitě interní a externí komunikace.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 13 3
3. Poučení vyvozená z testování digitální provozní odolnosti provedeného v souladu s články 26 a 27 a ze skutečných incidentů souvisejících s IKT, zejména kybernetických útoků, a dále z problémů v souvislosti s aktivací plánů zachování provozu IKT a plánů reakce a obnovy v oblasti IKT a relevantních informací vyměňovaných s protistranami a vyhodnocovaných během přezkumů orgány dohledu se náležitě a průběžně začleňují do postupu posuzování rizika v oblasti IKT. Tato zjištění tvoří základ pro odpovídající přezkumy příslušných složek rámce pro řízení rizik v oblasti IKT uvedeného v čl. 6 odst. 1.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 23 Oznamovací povinnosti
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 22 Politika pro řízení incidentů souvisejících s IKT
Článek 22
Politika pro řízení incidentů souvisejících s IKT
V rámci mechanismů pro detekci neobvyklých aktivit, včetně problémů s fungováním sítě IKT a incidentů souvisejících s IKT, finanční subjekty vypracují, zdokumentují a zavedou politiku pro incidenty související s IKT, prostřednictvím které:
a)
dokumentují proces řízení incidentů souvisejících s IKT uvedený v článku 17 nařízení (EU) 2022/2554;
b)
vypracují seznam příslušných kontaktů na interní funkce a externí zúčastněné strany, které se přímo podílejí na zajištění bezpečnosti operací IKT, včetně:
i)
detekce a monitorování kybernetických hrozeb;
ii)
detekce neobvyklých aktivit;
c)
vypracují, zavedou a používají technické, organizační a provozní mechanismy na podporu procesu řízení incidentů souvisejících s IKT, včetně mechanismů umožňujících včasnou detekci neobvyklých aktivit a chování v souladu s článkem 23 tohoto nařízení;
▼C1
d)
uchovávají veškeré důkazy týkající se incidentů souvisejících s IKT po dobu, která není delší, než je nezbytné pro účely, pro které jsou údaje shromažďovány, a která je úměrná významu zasažených obchodních funkcí, podpůrných procesů a aktiv v oblasti IKT a informačních aktiv, v souladu s čl. 8 odst. 2 nařízení Komise v přenesené pravomoci (EU) 2024/1772 (
2
) a je v souladu s použitelným požadavkem na uchovávání podle práva Unie;
▼B
e)
vypracují a zavedou mechanismy pro analýzu významných nebo opakujících se incidentů souvisejících s IKT a vzorců, pokud jde o počet a výskyt incidentů souvisejících s IKT.
Pro účely písmene d) uchovávají finanční subjekty důkazy uvedené v tomto písmenu bezpečným způsobem.
|
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.
|