|
+Secure Architecture Principles |
Secure Architecture PrinciplesDescriptionMechanisms exist to ensure security, compliance and resilience capabilities are designed and maintained in alignment with security architecture principles from:(1) The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF); (2) Sherwood Applied Business Security Architecture (SABSA); and/or (3) An organization-defined reference architecture. Possible Solutions & ConsiderationsMicro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2∙ Reference NIST CSF for architecture guidance∙ Apply basic secure design principles (least privilege, defense-in-depth) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4∙ NIST CSF and OWASP design principles∙ Documented secure design checklist Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6∙ TOGAF or SABSA-aligned secure architecture principles∙ Documented architecture principles standard ∙ Security architecture review in project lifecycle Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8∙ Enterprise secure architecture principles aligned to TOGAF or SABSA∙ Security Architecture Review Board (SARB) ∙ Architecture principles enforced in project governance Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9∙ Enterprise architecture framework with embedded security principles (TOGAF or SABSA)∙ Dedicated security architecture function ∙ Automated architecture compliance checking ∙ Board-approved enterprise architecture standards SCR-CMMLevel 0 Not PerformedPractices 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 InformallySCR-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 TrackedSecure 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 DefinedSecure 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 ensure security, compliance and resilience capabilities are designed and maintained in alignment with security architecture principles from: (1) The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF); (2) Sherwood Applied Business Security Architecture (SABSA); and/or (3) An organization-defined reference architecture. Level 4 Quantitatively ControlledUtilize 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 ImprovingUtilize 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 Odkazy1.2 Identifikované požadavky1.3 Související regulace2. Identifikované požadavky
3. Související regulace
Propojené úkoly
|