+Security, Compliance & Resilience Aware Design
---+Achieving Security, Compliance & Resilience Requirements
---+Flexible Technology Stack
|
Security, Compliance & Resilience Aware Design
Description
Mechanisms exist to formally incorporate the organization's secure architecture principles into engineering, product and model design requirements to ensure security, compliance and resilience are built in by default and by design.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Security design checklist for new systems or applications
∙ OWASP Top 10 design guidance
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ OWASP secure design principles
∙ Security requirements in development projects
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Security-by-design requirements integrated into SDLC
∙ Threat modeling for new systems
∙ OWASP Threat Dragon or similar
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise secure-by-design program
∙ Threat modeling requirements in SDLC
∙ Security architecture approval for new projects
∙ Privacy and security design reviews
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise security-aware design program
∙ Automated threat modeling integration in SDLC
∙ Security and privacy design reviews for all new systems
∙ Board-approved security-by-design policy
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
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Secure engineering and architecture management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A cybersecurity engineering / architecture team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of secure engineering management operations (e.g., project 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 SEA 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 secure engineering principles on all applicable Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to formally incorporate the organization's secure architecture principles into engineering, product and model design requirements to ensure security, compliance and resilience are built in by default and by design.
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 |
|
Achieving Security, Compliance & Resilience Requirements
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to design Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) so that required capabilities continue to operate in a controlled and acceptable manner, when conditions are both routine and degraded.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
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
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with SEA domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Security engineering-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 design, build and maintain secure, compliant and resilient solutions.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Secure engineering and architecture 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 define entity-specific secure engineering practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the entity's TAASD.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel align secure engineering practices with the entity's broader IT architecture practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use secure engineering practices to influence Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC).
Level 3 Well Defined
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A cybersecurity engineering / architecture team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of secure engineering management operations (e.g., project 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 SEA 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 secure engineering principles on all applicable Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to achieve resilience requirements in normal and adverse situations.
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.
|
|
Flexible Technology Stack
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to design and maintain a flexible, interoperable stack that supports modular integration of best-in-class commercial Technology Assets, Applications and Services (TAAS).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Prefer cloud services with standard export and API capabilities
∙ Avoid single-vendor dependence for critical data
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented technology standards favoring open formats and APIs
∙ Vendor exit considerations in procurement
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Enterprise architecture standards for interoperability
∙ API-first integration approach
∙ Vendor lock-in assessed during acquisition
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise architecture framework (e.g., TOGAF) with interoperability principles
∙ Integration platform / API management
∙ Modular reference architectures
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise architecture governance with interoperability and modularity standards
∙ API management and integration platforms
∙ Architecture review board evaluating vendor dependence and exit options
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
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with SEA domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Security engineering-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 design, build and maintain secure, compliant and resilient solutions.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Secure engineering and architecture management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A cybersecurity engineering / architecture team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of secure engineering management operations (e.g., project 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 SEA 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 secure engineering principles on all applicable Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
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 9 3
3. K dosažení cílů uvedených v odstavci 2 využívají finanční subjekty řešení a procesy IKT, které jsou vhodné v souladu s článkem 4. Tato řešení a procesy IKT:
|
a)
|
zajišťují bezpečnost prostředků pro přenos dat;
|
|
b)
|
minimalizují riziko poškození nebo ztráty dat, neoprávněného přístupu a technických závad, jež mohou narušovat výkon obchodní činnosti;
|
|
c)
|
předcházejí narušení dostupnosti, hodnověrnosti, integrity a důvěrnosti údajů a jejich ztrátě;
|
|
d)
|
zajišťují ochranu údajů před riziky vyplývajícími ze špatné správy údajů, včetně nekvalitní správy, rizik souvisejících se zpracováním a chyb způsobených lidským faktorem.
|
|
|
DELAW
|
BDSG § 9 Zuständigkeit
(1) Die oder der Bundesbeauftragte ist zuständig für die Aufsicht über die öffentlichen Stellen des Bundes, auch soweit sie als öffentlich-rechtliche Unternehmen am Wettbewerb teilnehmen, sowie über Unternehmen, soweit diese für die geschäftsmäßige Erbringung von Telekommunikationsdienstleistungen Daten von natürlichen oder juristischen Personen verarbeiten und sich die Zuständigkeit nicht bereits aus § 29 des Telekommunikation-Digitale-Dienste-Datenschutz-Gesetzes ergibt. Die Vorschriften dieses Kapitels gelten auch für Auftragsverarbeiter, soweit sie nichtöffentliche Stellen sind, bei denen dem Bund die Mehrheit der Anteile gehört oder die Mehrheit der Stimmen zusteht und der Auftraggeber eine öffentliche Stelle des Bundes ist. (2) Die oder der Bundesbeauftragte ist nicht zuständig für die Aufsicht über die von den Bundesgerichten im Rahmen ihrer justiziellen Tätigkeit vorgenommenen Verarbeitungen.
|
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.
|