+Incident Response Plan (IRP)
---+Incident Response Plan (IRP) Update
|
Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain and make available a current and viable Incident Response Plan (IRP) to all stakeholders.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 maintain and make available a current and viable Incident Response Plan (IRP) to all stakeholders.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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 |
|
Incident Response Plan (IRP) Update
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to regularly review and modify incident response practices to incorporate lessons learned, business process changes and industry developments, as necessary.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ On at least an annual basis, IT and/or cybersecurity personnel update incident response strategies to keep current with business needs, technology changes and regulatory requirements.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 regularly review and modify incident response practices to incorporate lessons learned, business process changes and industry developments, as necessary.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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 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 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 17 Proces for styring af IKT-relaterede hændelser
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 17 Proces for styring af IKT-relaterede hændelser
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 17 1
1. De finansielle enheder definerer, fastlægger og gennemfører en proces for styring af IKT-relaterede hændelser for at detektere, styre og indberette IKT-relaterede hændelser.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 17 2
2. De finansielle enheder registrerer alle IKT-relaterede hændelser og væsentlige cybertrusler. De finansielle enheder fastlægger passende procedurer og processer, der skal sikre en konsekvent og integreret overvågning, håndtering og opfølgning af IKT-relaterede hændelser, således at de grundlæggende årsager identificeres, dokumenteres og håndteres for at forhindre, at sådanne hændelser forekommer.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 17 3
3. Som led i den proces for styring af IKT-relaterede hændelser, der er omhandlet i stk. 1:
|
a)
|
indføres der tidlige advarselsindikatorer
|
|
b)
|
fastlægges der procedurer til at identificere, spore, logge, kategorisere og klassificere IKT-relaterede hændelser alt efter deres prioritet og vigtighed og alt efter den kritiske betydning i overensstemmelse med de kriterier, der er fastlagt i artikel 18, stk. 1
|
|
c)
|
tildeles der roller og ansvarsområder, som skal aktiveres for forskellige IKT-relaterede hændelsestyper og -scenarier
|
|
d)
|
udarbejdes der planer for kommunikation til personale, eksterne interessenter og medier i overensstemmelse med artikel 14 og for underretning af kunder, interne fejlafhjælpningsprocedurer, herunder IKT-relaterede kundeklager, samt for indgivelse af oplysninger til finansielle enheder, der fungerer som modparter, alt efter hvad der er relevant
|
|
e)
|
sikres det, at større IKT-relaterede hændelser som minimum indberettes til den relevante øverste ledelse, at ledelsesorganet som minimum underrettes om større IKT-relaterede hændelser, idet der redegøres for virkningerne, indsatsen og yderligere kontroller, som skal indføres som følge af sådanne IKT-relaterede hændelser
|
|
f)
|
træffes der indsatsforanstaltninger mod IKT-relaterede hændelser, som skal afbøde virkningerne og sikre, at tjenesterne bliver operationelle og sikre på en rettidig 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.
|