+Digital & Non-Digital Media Disposal
---+Dual Authorization for Sensitive / Regulated Data Destruction
|
Digital & Non-Digital Media Disposal
Description
Mechanisms exist to securely dispose of, destroy and/or erase digital and non-digital media when it is no longer required, using organization-defined procedures.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers
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.
▪ The data retention process is manual and IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to manage the process.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to dispose of, destroy, erase, and/or anonymize sensitive/regulated data.
Level 3 Well Defined
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling 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 DCH 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 securely dispose of, destroy or erase information.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 |
|
Dual Authorization for Sensitive / Regulated Data Destruction
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to enforce dual authorization for the destruction, disposal or sanitization of digital media that contains sensitive and/or regulated data.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Logical Access Control (LAC)
∙ Physical Access Control (PAC)
∙ Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
∙ Separation of Duties (SoD)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Logical Access Control (LAC)
∙ Physical Access Control (PAC)
∙ Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
∙ Separation of Duties (SoD)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Logical Access Control (LAC)
∙ Physical Access Control (PAC)
∙ Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
∙ Separation of Duties (SoD)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Logical Access Control (LAC)
∙ Physical Access Control (PAC)
∙ Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
∙ Separation of Duties (SoD)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Logical Access Control (LAC)
∙ Physical Access Control (PAC)
∙ Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
∙ Separation of Duties (SoD)
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
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 Well Defined
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling 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 DCH 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 enforce dual authorization for the destruction, disposal or sanitization of digital media that contains sensitive/regulated data.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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.
|
1.1 Referencer
1.2 Identificerede krav
1.3 Relaterede reguleringer
2. Identificerede krav
3. Relaterede reguleringer
Reguleringer
| Kilde |
Regulering |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 Data- og systemsikkerhed
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 Data- og systemsikkerhed
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 35 Data-, system- og netsikkerhed
Artikel 35
Data-, system- og netsikkerhed
De finansielle enheder, der er omhandlet i artikel 16, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2022/2554, udvikler og gennemfører som en del af deres systemer, protokoller og værktøjer sikkerhedsforanstaltninger, der garanterer netsikkerheden mod indtrængen og datamisbrug, og som bevarer tilgængeligheden, autenticiteten, integriteten og fortroligheden af data. Navnlig indfører finansielle enheder under hensyntagen til den klassificering, der er omhandlet i denne forordnings artikel 30, stk. 1, alt følgende:
a)
identifikation og gennemførelse af foranstaltninger til beskyttelse af data, som i brug, under overførsel og inaktive
b)
identifikation og gennemførelse af sikkerhedsforanstaltninger med henblik på brugen af software, datalagringsmedier, -systemer og endpoint-enheder til at overføre og lagre den finansielle enheds data
c)
identifikation og gennemførelse af foranstaltninger til forebyggelse og detektion af uautoriserede forbindelser til den finansielle enheds netværk og til sikring af nettrafikken mellem den finansielle enheds interne netværk og internettet og andre eksterne forbindelser
d)
identifikation og gennemførelse af foranstaltninger, der sikrer tilgængeligheden, autenticiteten, integriteten og fortroligheden af data i forbindelse med under overførsel på nettet
e)
proces for sikker sletning af data, der findes i den finansielle enheds lokaler eller lagres eksternt, som den finansielle enhed ikke længere behøver at indsamle eller lagre
f)
en proces til sikker bortskaffelse eller demontering af datalagringsenheder i lokaler eller datalagringsenheder, der er lagret eksternt, og som indeholder fortrolige oplysninger
g)
identifikation og gennemførelse af foranstaltninger til at sikre, at telearbejde og brugen af private endpoint-enheder ikke har en negativ indvirkning på den finansielle enheds evne til at udøve sine kritiske aktiviteter på en passende, rettidig og sikker måde.
|
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.
|