+Penetration Testing

Penetration Testing

Description

Mechanisms exist to conduct penetration testing on Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Annual external vulnerability scan; penetration test when required by customers/contracts

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Annual penetration test by qualified tester

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Annual penetration test by qualified third-party tester

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Enterprise penetration testing program
∙ Annual external and internal pen tests

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise penetration testing program
∙ Annual and event-driven pen tests
∙ Red team exercises
∙ Purple teaming

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.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel, or contracted professionals, conduct annual penetration testing on network segments hosting High Value Assets (HVAs).

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 conduct penetration testing on Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).

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.

1. Oversigt

Titel Standard

1.1 Referencer

1.2 Identificerede krav

1.3 Relaterede reguleringer

2. Identificerede krav

Krav
Kilde Krav

3. Relaterede reguleringer

Reguleringer
Kilde Regulering
EULAW Artikel 27 Format og indhold af rapporten om gennemgangen af rammen for IKT-risikostyring
-
EULAW Artikel 26 Avancerede test af IKT-værktøjer, -systemer og -processer baseret på TLPT
-
EULAW Artikel 26 1

1.   Finansielle enheder, der hverken er enheder som omhandlet i artikel 16, stk. 1, første afsnit, eller mikrovirksomheder, og som er identificeret i overensstemmelse med nærværende artikels stk. 8, tredje afsnit, foretager mindst hvert tredje år avancerede test ved hjælp af TLPT. På grundlag af den finansielle enheds risikoprofil og under hensyntagen til de operationelle omstændigheder kan den kompetente myndighed om nødvendigt anmode den finansielle enhed om at reducere eller øge denne hyppighed.

EULAW Artikel 26 2

2.   Hver trusselsbaseret penetrationstest skal omfatte flere eller samtlige kritiske eller vigtige funktioner hos en finansiel enhed og foretages på live-produktionssystemer, der understøtter sådanne funktioner.

De finansielle enheder identificerer alle relevante underliggende IKT-systemer, -processer og -teknologier, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner og alle relevante IKT-tjenester, herunder dem, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner og tjenester, der er blevet outsourcet eller udliciteret til tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester.

De finansielle enheder vurderer, hvilke kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, der skal være omfattet af TLPT. Resultatet af denne vurdering bestemmer det nøjagtige omfang af TLPT og valideres af de kompetente myndigheder.

EULAW Artikel 26 3

3.   Hvis tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester medtages i TLPT's anvendelsesområde, træffer den finansielle enhed de nødvendige foranstaltninger og sikkerhedsforanstaltninger for at sikre deltagelse af sådanne tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester i TLPT, og den har til enhver tid det fulde ansvar for at sikre overholdelse af denne forordning.

EULAW Artikel 26 4

4.   Uden at det berører stk. 2, første og andet afsnit, kan den finansielle enhed og tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester, hvis deltagelse af en tredjepartsudbyder af IKT-tjenester i TLPT som omhandlet i stk. 3 med rimelighed kan forventes at have en negativ indvirkning på kvaliteten eller sikkerheden af de tjenester, som tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester leverer til kunder, der er enheder, som ikke henhører under denne forordnings anvendelsesområde, eller på fortroligheden af data forbundet med sådanne tjenester, skriftligt aftale, at tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester direkte indgår kontraktlige ordninger med en ekstern tester med henblik på under ledelse af en udpeget finansiel enhed at foretage en samlet TLPT, der omfatter flere finansielle enheder (samlet test), som tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester leverer IKT-tjenester til.

Denne samlede test skal omfatte en relevant vifte af IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, som de finansielle enheder har udliciteret til den pågældende tredjepartsudbyder af IKT-tjenester. Den samlede test betragtes som en TLPT, som gennemføres af de finansielle enheder, der deltager i den samlede test.

Antallet af finansielle enheder, der deltager i den samlede test, afpasses behørigt under hensyntagen til kompleksiteten og typen af de involverede tjenester.

EULAW Artikel 26 5

5.   De finansielle enheder anvender i samarbejde med tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester og andre involverede parter, herunder testere, men med undtagelse af de kompetente myndigheder, effektive risikostyringskontroller for at mindske risici for potentielle virkninger på data, skade på aktiver og forstyrrelser af kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, tjenester eller operationer i den finansielle enhed selv, hos dens modparter eller i den finansielle sektor.

EULAW Artikel 26 6

6.   Efter afslutning af testen, og efter at der er opnået enighed om rapporter og udbedringsplaner, forelægger den finansielle enhed og, hvor det er relevant, de eksterne testere den myndighed, der er udpeget i overensstemmelse med stk. 9 eller 10, en sammenfatning af de relevante resultater, udbedringsplanerne og den dokumentation, som viser, at TLPT er blevet gennemført i overensstemmelse med kravene.

EULAW Artikel 26 7

7.   Myndighederne forelægger de finansielle enheder en erklæring, der bekræfter, at testen er blevet gennemført i overensstemmelse med de krav, der fremgår af dokumentationen, for at give mulighed for gensidig anerkendelse af trusselsbaserede penetrationstest mellem de kompetente myndigheder. Den finansielle enhed underretter den relevante kompetente myndighed om erklæringen, sammenfatningen af de relevante resultater og udbedringsplanerne.

Med forbehold af denne erklæring har de finansielle enheder til enhver tid fortsat det fulde ansvar for virkningen af de i stk. 4 omhandlede test.

EULAW Artikel 26 8

8.   De finansielle enheder indgår en kontrakt med testere med henblik på at gennemføre TLPT i overensstemmelse med artikel 27. Hvis de finansielle enheder anvender interne testere med henblik på at gennemføre TLPT, skal de indgå kontrakt med eksterne testere ved hver tredje test.

Kreditinstitutter, som er klassificeret som signifikante i overensstemmelse med artikel 6, stk. 4, i forordning (EU) nr. 1024/2013, må kun anvende eksterne testere i overensstemmelse med artikel 27, stk. 1, litra a)-e).

De kompetente myndigheder identificerer finansielle enheder, som pålægges at gennemføre TLPT under hensyntagen til kriterierne i artikel 4, stk. 2, på grundlag af en vurdering af følgende:

a)

virkningsrelaterede faktorer, navnlig i hvilket omfang de tjenester, der leveres, og de aktiviteter, der udføres af den finansielle enhed, indvirker på den finansielle sektor

b)

eventuelle betænkeligheder vedrørende finansiel stabilitet, herunder den finansielle enheds systemiske karakter på EU-plan eller nationalt plan, alt efter hvad der er relevant

c)

den finansielle enheds specifikke IKT-risikoprofil, grad af IKT-modenhed eller de teknologiske kendetegn, der er involveret.

Linkede sager

Sagslinks
Linktype Sag
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Technology
is related to Detect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Product Defect / Design Failure
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OPS-18.01B
blocks OPS-22.01B
blocks OPS-22.02B
blocks OPS-22.03B
blocks OPS-22.04B
blocks OPS-22.05B
blocks OPS-22.02AS
blocks OPS-22.03AS
blocks OPS-22.02AC
blocks OPS-22.03AC
blocks OPS-32.01AC
blocks DEV-07.01AC
blocks COM-02.02B
is blocked by VPM-18 Penetration Testing – Assessment Procedure
blocks CA-08 Penetration Testing
blocks SA-11(05) Penetration Testing
blocks CA-08 [H] Penetration Testing
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "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.