+Anomalous Behavior
---+Unusual Transactions
|
Anomalous Behavior
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize User & Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) and/or User Activity Monitoring (UAM) solutions to detect and respond to anomalous behavior that could indicate account compromise or other malicious activities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
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
Continuous Monitoring (MON) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with MON domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Event monitoring-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Monitoring is primarily reactive in nature, focused on identifying incidents that occurred.
▪ Event log reviews primarily rely on manual processes to identify anomalous behaviors.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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 MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with MON 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 MON domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Continuous monitoring-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Continuous monitoring 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
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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 MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel use a structured process via Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) to review and analyze logs.
▪ A Security Operations Center (SOC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain MON domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of continuous monitoring operations (e.g., Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)).
▪ 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 MON 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 security event logging to contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to utilize User & Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) and/or User Activity Monitoring (UAM) solutions to detect and respond to anomalous behavior that could indicate account compromise or other malicious activities.
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. Oversigt
| Titel |
Standard |
|
Unusual Transactions
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to define "normal business activities" to identify anomalous transaction activities that can reduce the opportunity for sending (outbound) and/or receiving (inbound) hostile and/or fraudulent actions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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 MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel use a structured process via Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) to review and analyze logs.
▪ A Security Operations Center (SOC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain MON domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of continuous monitoring operations (e.g., Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)).
▪ 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 MON 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 security event logging to contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to establish organization-defined "normal business activities" to identify anomalous transaction activities that can reduce the opportunity for sending (outbound) and/or receiving (inbound) fraudulent actions.
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 Referencer
1.2 Identificerede krav
1.3 Relaterede reguleringer
2. Identificerede krav
3. Relaterede reguleringer
Reguleringer
| Kilde |
Regulering |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 10 1
1. De finansielle enheder indfører mekanismer til omgående detektion af anormale aktiviteter i overensstemmelse med artikel 17, herunder problemer med IKT-netværkets ydeevne og IKT-relaterede hændelser, og til identifikation af potentielt væsentlige single points of failure.
De i første afsnit omhandlede mekanismer testes regelmæssigt i overensstemmelse med artikel 25.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 22 Politik for styring af IKT-relaterede hændelser
Artikel 22
Politik for styring af IKT-relaterede hændelser
Som led i mekanismerne til detektion af anormale aktiviteter, herunder problemer med IKT-netværkets ydeevne og IKT-relaterede hændelser, udvikler, dokumenterer og gennemfører finansielle enheder en politik for IKT-relaterede hændelser, i medfør af hvilken de skal:
a)
dokumentere processen for styring af IKT-relaterede hændelser som omhandlet i artikel 17, i forordning (EU) 2022/2554
b)
udarbejde en liste over relevante kontakter, som har interne funktioner, og eksterne interessenter, der er direkte involveret i sikkerheden i forbindelse med IKT-operationer, herunder om:
i)
detektion og overvågning af cybertrusler
ii)
detektion af anormale aktiviteter
c)
indføre, gennemføre og drive tekniske, organisatoriske og operationelle mekanismer, som skal understøtte processen for styring af IKT-relaterede hændelser, herunder mekanismer, der gør det muligt straks at detektere anormale aktiviteter og anomal adfærd i overensstemmelse med denne forordnings artikel 23
▼C1
d)
opbevare alt bevismateriale vedrørende IKT-relaterede hændelser i en periode, der ikke må være længere end, hvad der er nødvendigt til de formål, hvortil dataene indsamles, og som står i rimeligt forhold til de berørte forretningsfunktioners kritiske betydning, understøttende processer samt IKT-aktiver og informationsaktiver i overensstemmelse med artikel 8, stk. 2, i Kommissionens delegerede forordning (EU) 2024/1772 (
2
) og med eventuelle gældende opbevaringskrav i henhold til EU-retten
▼B
e)
indføre og gennemføre mekanismer til analyse af væsentlige eller tilbagevendende IKT-relaterede hændelser og mønstre med hensyn til antal og forekomst af IKT-relaterede hændelser.
Med henblik på litra d) opbevarer finansielle enheder den dokumentation, der er omhandlet i nævnte litra, på en sikker måde.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 23 Detektion af anormale aktiviteter og kriterier for detektion af og reaktion af IKT-relaterede hændelser
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 23 Detektion af anormale aktiviteter og kriterier for detektion af og reaktion af IKT-relaterede hændelser
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 34 Sikkerhed i forbindelse med IKT-operationer
Artikel 34
Sikkerhed i forbindelse med IKT-operationer
De finansielle enheder, der er omhandlet i artikel 16, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2022/2554, gør følgende som en del af deres systemer, protokoller og værktøjer og for alle IKT-aktiver:
a)
overvåger og forvalter livscyklussen for alle IKT-aktiver
b)
overvåger, om IKT-aktiverne understøttes af tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester fra finansielle enheder, hvis det er relevant
c)
identificerer kapacitetskrav til deres IKT-aktiver og foranstaltninger til at opretholde og forbedre IKT-systemernes tilgængelighed og effektivitet og forebygge mangel på IKT-kapacitet, inden de forekommer
d)
foretager automatiseret sårbarhedsscanning og automatiserede vurderinger af IKT-aktiver, som står i rimeligt forhold til deres klassificering, jf. artikel 30, stk. 1, og til IKT-aktivets overordnede risikoprofil, og tager korrektioner i brug for at afhjælpe konstaterede sårbarheder
e)
styrer de risici, der er forbundet med forældede, ikkeunderstøttede eller legacy-IKT-aktiver
f)
logfører hændelser, som vedrører logisk og fysisk adgangskontrol, IKT-operationer, herunder system- og netværkstrafikaktiviteter, og styring af IKT-ændringer
g)
identificerer og gennemfører foranstaltninger til overvågning og analyse af oplysninger om anormale aktiviteter og anormal adfærd, som vedrører kritiske eller vigtige IKT-operationer
h)
gennemfører foranstaltninger til overvågning af relevante og ajourførte oplysninger om cybertrusler
i)
gennemfører foranstaltninger til at konstatere mulige informationslækager, ondsindede kodetyper og andre sikkerhedstrusler og offentligt kendte sårbarheder i software og hardware og tjekker, om der findes dertil svarende nye sikkerhedsopdateringer.
Med henblik på litra f) tilpasser finansielle enheder logfilernes detaljeringsgrad i forhold til deres formål og anvendelse af det IKT-aktiv, der producerer disse logfiler.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 10 Detektion
-
|
Linkede sager
- 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.
|