+Periodic Review of Individual & Service Account Privileges
---+System Account Reviews
|
Periodic Review of Individual & Service Account Privileges
Description
Mechanisms exist to periodically-review the privileges assigned to individuals and service accounts to validate the need for such privileges and reassign or remove unnecessary privileges, as necessary.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Annual review of user access rights
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Periodic (at least annual) review of all user account privileges
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal quarterly/annual account privilege review process
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise access certification program with automated review campaigns
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise IGA platform (e.g., SailPoint, Saviynt, IBM Security Verify)
∙ Automated access certification
∙ Continuous access review
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
▪ IAM inventories all privileged accounts and validates that each person with elevated privileges is authorized by the appropriate level of organizational management.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 periodically-review the privileges assigned to individuals and service accounts to validate the need for such privileges and reassign or remove unnecessary privileges, as necessary.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 |
|
System Account Reviews
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to review all system accounts and disable any account that cannot be associated with a business process and owner.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Periodic review of user accounts and access rights
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Annual user account review
∙ Remove unused accounts and excess access
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal periodic account review process
∙ Quarterly access reviews
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise access certification program
∙ Automated access review campaigns
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise IGA platform (e.g., SailPoint, Saviynt)
∙ Automated access certification campaigns
∙ Manager-driven access reviews
∙ Role mining and optimization
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
▪ IAM proactively governs account management of individual, group, system, application, guest and temporary accounts.
▪ IAM inventories all privileged accounts and validates that each person with elevated privileges is authorized by the appropriate level of organizational management.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 review all system accounts and disable any account that cannot be associated with a business process and owner.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 Referencer
1.2 Identificerede krav
1.3 Relaterede reguleringer
2. Identificerede krav
3. Relaterede reguleringer
Reguleringer
| Kilde |
Regulering |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 21 Adgangskontrol
Artikel 21
Som led i deres kontrol med rettigheder vedrørende adgangsforvaltning udvikler, dokumenterer og gennemfører finansielle enheder en politik, der indeholder alt følgende:
a)
tildeling af adgangsrettigheder til IKT-aktiver på grundlag af need to know-princippet, need to use-princippet og least privilege-princippet, herunder fjernadgang og adgang i hastetilfælde
b)
adskillelse af opgaver, der er udformet med henblik på at forhindre uberettiget adgang til kritiske data eller forhindre tildeling af kombinationer af adgangsrettigheder, der kan anvendes til at omgå kontroller
c)
en bestemmelse om brugeransvar, idet brugen af generiske og delte brugerkonti begrænses så vidt muligt og det sikres, at brugerne til enhver tid kan identificeres med hensyn til de handlinger, der udføres i IKT-systemerne
d)
en bestemmelse om begrænsning af adgangen til IKT-aktiver, der fastsætter kontrolforanstaltninger og værktøjer, som skal forhindre uautoriseret adgang
e)
procedurer for kontoforvaltning med henblik på tildeling, ændring eller tilbagekaldelse af adgangsrettigheder for brugerkonti og generiske konti, herunder generiske administratorkonti, som omfatter bestemmelser om alt følgende:
i)
tildeling af roller og ansvarsområder for tildeling, gennemgang og tilbagekaldelse af adgangsrettigheder
ii)
tildeling af privilegeret adgang, hasteadgang og administratoradgang på need to know-basis eller ad hoc-basis for alle IKT-systemer
iii)
øjeblikkelig inddragelse af adgangsretten ved ansættelsesforholdets ophør, eller når adgangen ikke længere er nødvendig
iv)
ajourføring af adgangsrettigheder, når ændringer er nødvendige, og mindst en gang om året for alle IKT-systemer, bortset fra IKT-systemer, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, og mindst hver sjette måned for IKT-systemer, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner.
f)
autentificeringsmetoder, herunder alle følgende:
i)
anvendelse af autentificeringsmetoder, der svarer til den klassificering, der er fastsat i overensstemmelse med artikel 8, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2022/2554, og til IKT-aktivernes overordnede risikoprofil og under hensyntagen til førende praksis
ii)
anvendelse af stærke autentificeringsmetoder i overensstemmelse med førende praksis og teknikker vedrørende fjernadgang til den finansielle enheds netværk, privilegeret adgang, adgang til IKT-aktiver, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, eller IKT-aktiver, der er offentligt tilgængelige
g)
foranstaltninger til fysisk adgangskontrol, herunder:
i)
identificering og logføring af fysiske personer, der har tilladelse til at få adgang til lokaler, datacentre og sensitive udpegede områder, som er angivet af den finansielle enhed, og hvor der ligger IKT-aktiver og informationsaktiver
ii)
tildeling af fysiske adgangsrettigheder til kritiske IKT-aktiver udelukkende til autoriserede personer i overensstemmelse med need to know-princippet og least privilege-princippet og på ad hoc-basis
iii)
overvågning af fysisk adgang til lokaler, datacentre og sensitive udpegede områder, som er angivet af den finansielle enhed, og hvor der både ligger IKT-aktiver og informationsaktiver
iv)
gennemgang af fysiske adgangsrettigheder for at sikre, at unødvendige adgangsrettigheder straks tilbagekaldes.
Med henblik på litra e), nr. i), fastsætter finansielle enheder opbevaringsperioden, idet de tager hensyn til forretnings- og informationssikkerhedsmålene, årsagerne til registreringen af hændelsen i logfilerne og resultaterne af IKT-risikovurderingen.
Med henblik på litra e), nr. ii), anvender finansielle enheder, når det er muligt, særlige konti til varetagelse af administrative opgaver vedrørende IKT-systemer. Hvis det er muligt og hensigtsmæssigt, anvender finansielle enheder automatiserede løsninger til forvaltning af privilegeret adgang.
Med henblik på litra g), nr. i), skal identifikationen og logføringen stå i rimeligt forhold til betydningen af lokalerne, datacentrene, de sensitive udpegede områder og den kritiske betydning af de operationer eller IKT-systemer, der foretages og ligger deri.
Med henblik på litra g), nr. iii), skal overvågningen stå i rimeligt forhold til den klassificering, der er fastlagt i overensstemmelse med artikel 8, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2022/2554, og den kritiske betydning af det område, hvortil der opnås adgang.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 33 Adgangskontrol
Artikel 33
De finansielle enheder, der er omhandlet i artikel 16, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2022/2554, udvikler, dokumenterer og gennemfører procedurer for kontrol af logisk og fysisk adgang og håndhæver, overvåger og gennemgår regelmæssigt disse procedurer. Disse procedurer skal indeholde følgende elementer af kontrol af logisk og fysisk adgang:
a)
adgangsrettigheder til informationsaktiver, IKT-aktiver og deres understøttede funktioner og til kritiske driftssteder for den finansielle enhed forvaltes på need to know-basis, need to use-basis og least privilege-basis, herunder for fjern- og hasteadgang
b)
brugeransvar, som sikrer, at brugerne kan identificeres for de handlinger, der udføres i IKT-systemerne
c)
procedurer for kontoforvaltning med henblik på tildeling, ændring eller tilbagekaldelse af adgangsrettigheder for brugerkonti og generiske konti, herunder generiske administratorkonti
d)
autentificeringsmetoder, der svarer til den klassificering, der er omhandlet i artikel 30, stk. 1, og til IKT-aktivernes overordnede risikoprofil, og som er baseret på førende praksis
e)
adgangsrettigheder gennemgås regelmæssigt og trækkes tilbage, når de ikke længere er nødvendige.
Med henblik på litra c) tildeler den finansielle enhed privilegeret adgang, haste- og administratoradgang på need to use-basis eller ad hoc-basis til alle IKT-systemer, og de logføres i overensstemmelse med artikel 34, litra f), første afsnit.
Med henblik på litra d) anvender finansielle enheder stærke autentificeringsmetoder, der er baseret på førende praksis for fjernadgang til de finansielle enheders netværk, privilegeret adgang og adgang til IKT-aktiver, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, som er offentligt tilgængelige.
|
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.
|