+Vulnerability Remediation Process
---+Centralized Management of Flaw Remediation Processes
---+Continuous Vulnerability Remediation Activities
---+Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Mitigations
|
Vulnerability Remediation Process
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure that vulnerabilities are properly identified, tracked and remediated.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Patch software when updates are released
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Vulnerability remediation policy
∙ Prioritized patching schedule
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal vulnerability remediation process
∙ Risk-based prioritization
∙ Remediation SLAs
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise vulnerability remediation program
∙ Defined SLAs by severity
∙ Tracking and reporting
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise vulnerability management platform (e.g., Tenable.io, Qualys)
∙ Automated remediation tracking
∙ SIEM integration
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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability 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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning 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 VPM 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 ensure that vulnerabilities are properly identified, tracked and remediated.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
1. Přehled
| Název |
Standard |
|
Centralized Management of Flaw Remediation Processes
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to centrally-manage the flaw remediation process.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Centrally track vulnerability status across all systems
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Centralized vulnerability tracking spreadsheet or tool
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Centralized vulnerability management platform (e.g., Tenable.io, Qualys)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise centralized vulnerability management platform with integrated asset management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise vulnerability management platform (e.g., Tenable One, Qualys VMDR)
∙ Full asset-vulnerability integration
∙ Automated centralized management
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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability 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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning 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 VPM 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 centrally-manage the flaw remediation process.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
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.
|
|
Continuous Vulnerability Remediation Activities
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to address new threats and vulnerabilities on an ongoing basis and ensure assets are protected against known attacks.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Continuously monitor for new vulnerabilities in used software
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Continuous vulnerability scanning and remediation cycle
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal continuous vulnerability management program
∙ Regular scan cadence
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise continuous vulnerability management (e.g., Tenable.io, Qualys)
∙ Automated remediation workflows
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise continuous vulnerability management platform
∙ Real-time scanning
∙ Automated patching integration
∙ SIEM/SOAR integration
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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability 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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning 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 VPM 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 address new threats and vulnerabilities on an ongoing basis and ensure assets are protected against known attacks.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
|
|
Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Mitigations
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to prioritize remediation and mitigation of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) by:
(1) Reducing or removing public exposure to exploitation; and
(2) Expediting patch deployment actions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Subscribe to CISA KEV catalog alerts (https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog)
∙ Prioritize patching KEV-listed vulnerabilities within CISA timeframes
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ CISA KEV catalog subscription and monitoring
∙ Priority patching for KEV-listed vulnerabilities within CISA-defined windows
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ KEV-integrated vulnerability management program
∙ CISA KEV catalog integration with vulnerability scanner
∙ Accelerated remediation SLAs for KEV items
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise vulnerability management with KEV prioritization
∙ Automated KEV alerting and remediation tracking
∙ Defined KEV remediation SLAs
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise KEV management program
∙ Automated CISA KEV catalog integration
∙ Real-time KEV exposure tracking and alerting
∙ Risk-based KEV remediation with board-level visibility for material exposures
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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-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 apply software patches through an informal process.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability 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 the breadth and depth of coverage for vulnerability scanning that covers system components scanned and types of vulnerabilities that are checked for.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel maintain a structured process to apply software patches and other vulnerability remediation efforts.
Level 3 Well Defined
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning 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 VPM 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 prioritize remediation and mitigation of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) by:
(1) Reducing or removing public exposure to exploitation; and
(2) Expediting patch deployment actions.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
|
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 25 1
1. Program testování digitální provozní odolnosti uvedený v článku 24 stanoví v souladu s kritérii vymezenými v čl. 4 odst. 2 provedení vhodných testů, jako jsou hodnocení a zjišťování zranitelnosti, analýzy otevřených zdrojů, posouzení bezpečnosti sítě, analýzy nedostatků, přezkumy fyzické bezpečnosti, dotazníky a antivirová softwarová řešení, v případě proveditelnosti přezkumy zdrojových kódů, testy založené na scénářích, testování kompatibility, testování výkonu, testování mezi koncovými body a penetrační testování.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 25 2
2. Centrální depozitáři cenných papírů a ústřední protistrany provádějí hodnocení zranitelnosti před každým použitím či opakovaným použitím nových nebo stávajících aplikací nebo prvků infrastruktury a služeb IKT podporujících zásadní nebo důležité funkce finančního subjektu.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 25 3
3. Mikropodniky provádějí testy uvedené v odstavci 1 tak, že kombinují přístup založený na posouzení rizik se strategickým plánováním testování IKT, přičemž náležitě zváží potřebu zachovat vyvážený přístup mezi rozsahem zdrojů a dobou, kterou je třeba věnovat testování IKT podle tohoto článku, na jedné straně a naléhavostí, druhem rizika, tím, jak zásadní jsou informační aktiva a poskytované služby, jakož i veškerými dalšími relevantními faktory, včetně schopnosti finančního subjektu podstupovat zvážená rizika na straně druhé.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 10 Řízení zranitelností a oprav
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 10 Řízení zranitelností a oprav
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 10 Řízení zranitelností a oprav
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 34 Bezpečnost operací IKT
Článek 34
Finanční subjekty uvedené v čl. 16 odst. 1 nařízení (EU) 2022/2554 v rámci svých systémů, protokolů a nástrojů a pro všechna aktiva v oblasti IKT:
a)
sledují a řídí životní cyklus všech aktiv v oblasti IKT;
b)
sledují, zda jsou aktiva v oblasti IKT případně podporována poskytovateli služeb IKT z řad třetích stran finančních subjektů;
c)
určují požadavky na kapacitu svých aktiv v oblasti IKT a opatření k udržení a zlepšení dostupnosti a účinnosti systémů IKT a předcházení nedostatku kapacity IKT dříve, než se projeví;
d)
provádějí automatické skenování a posuzování zranitelnosti aktiv v oblasti IKT úměrně jejich klasifikaci podle čl. 30 odst. 1 a celkovému rizikovému profilu aktiv v oblasti IKT a provádějí opravy za účelem odstranění zjištěných zranitelností;
e)
řídí rizika spojená se zastaralými, nepodporovanými nebo původními aktivy v oblasti IKT;
f)
protokolují události související s řízením logického a fyzického přístupu, s operacemi IKT, včetně činností v systému a v síti, a s řízením změn v oblasti IKT;
g)
určují a zavádějí opatření pro monitorování a analýzu informací o neobvyklých aktivitách a chování u zásadních nebo důležitých operací IKT;
h)
zavádějí opatření ke sledování relevantních a aktuálních informací o kybernetických hrozbách;
i)
provádějí opatření k identifikaci možných úniků informací, škodlivých kódů a dalších bezpečnostních hrozeb a veřejně známých zranitelností softwaru a hardwaru a kontrolují, zda existují odpovídající nové bezpečnostní aktualizace.
Pro účely písmene f) musí finanční subjekty přizpůsobit míru podrobnosti protokolů jejich účelu a způsobu používání aktiva v oblasti IKT, které tyto protokoly vytváří.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 21 Opatření k řízení kybernetických bezpečnostních rizik
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Článek 13 Povinnosti výrobců
-
|
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.
|