|
+Control Assurance Automation (CAA) Evidence Integrity & Provenance |
Control Assurance Automation (CAA) Evidence Integrity & ProvenanceDescriptionMechanisms exist to preserve the integrity and chain of custody of logs, telemetry and evidence collected by Control Assurance Automation (CAA) automation, including:(1) Verification of source-to-repository transfer; and (2) Tamper-evident storage. Possible Solutions & ConsiderationsMicro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2∙ Evidence stored in access-restricted cloud folder with version history∙ Screenshots and exports labeled with date, source and collector Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4∙ Evidence repository with version history and restricted delete rights (e.g., SharePoint, Google Drive)∙ Hash values recorded for key evidence files Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) with evidence management and audit trail∙ Immutable object storage for evidence (e.g., AWS S3 Object Lock) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8∙ Compliance automation platform with evidence provenance metadata (e.g., Hyperproof, Drata, Vanta)∙ Immutable evidence storage with hash verification ∙ Logged access to evidence repository Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9∙ Enterprise GRC / continuous controls monitoring platform with evidence chain of custody∙ Cryptographically signed evidence collection ∙ WORM / immutable evidence storage with retention policies ∙ SIEM monitoring of evidence repository access 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 InformallyCompliance (CPL) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CPL domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Compliance management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Compliance efforts are narrowly-limited to certain compliance requirements. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel perform internal assessments of cybersecurity and data protection controls to determine compliance status. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to notify stakeholders about audit activities to minimize the impact of audit/assessment activities on business operations. Level 2 Planned TrackedCompliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Compliance 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 DefinedCompliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ 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 CPL 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). Level 4 Quantitatively ControlledCompliance (CPL) 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 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. Oversigt
1.1 Referencer1.2 Identificerede krav1.3 Relaterede reguleringer2. Identificerede krav
3. Relaterede reguleringer
Linkede sager
|