+Incident Stakeholder Reporting
---+Situational Awareness For Incidents
---+Cyber Incident Reporting for Sensitive / Regulated Data
---+Serious Incident Reporting
---+Vulnerabilities Related To Incidents
|
Incident Stakeholder Reporting
Description
Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.
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.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
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 timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.
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 |
|
Situational Awareness For Incidents
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to document, monitor and report the status of cybersecurity and data protection incidents to internal stakeholders all the way through the resolution of the incident.
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.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
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 document, monitor and report the status of cybersecurity and data protection incidents to internal stakeholders all the way through the resolution of the incident.
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.
|
|
Cyber Incident Reporting for Sensitive / Regulated Data
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to report sensitive and/or regulated data incidents in a timely manner.
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)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)
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
Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
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 report sensitive/regulated data incidents in a timely manner.
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.
|
|
Serious Incident Reporting
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) to relevant authorities in the locality where the incident occurred, in accordance with mandatory reporting:
(1) Requirements; and
(2) Timelines.
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.
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 report any serious incident involving the organization's TAASD to relevant authorities in the locality where the incident occurred, in accordance with mandatory reporting:
(1) Requirements; and
(2) Timelines.
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.
|
|
Vulnerabilities Related To Incidents
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to report system vulnerabilities associated with reported cybersecurity and data protection incidents to organization-defined personnel or roles.
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.
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 report system vulnerabilities associated with reported cybersecurity and data protection incidents to organization-defined personnel or roles.
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 23 Rapporteringsforpligtelser
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 17 Kvalitetsstyringssystem
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 39 Komponenter i planen for IKT-driftsstabilitet
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 14 Kommunikation
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 19 Indberetning af større IKT-relaterede hændelserog frivillig underretning om væsentlige cybertrusler
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 45 Ordninger for informationsudveksling af oplysninger og efterretninger om cybertrusler
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 34 Underretning om brud på persondatasikkerheden til den registrerede
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 14 Fabrikantens rapporteringsforpligtelser
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 15 Frivillig indberetning
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 14 Kommunikation
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 19 Indberetning af større IKT-relaterede hændelserog frivillig underretning om væsentlige cybertrusler
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 45 Ordninger for informationsudveksling af oplysninger og efterretninger om cybertrusler
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 34 Underretning om brud på persondatasikkerheden til den registrerede
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 14 Fabrikantens rapporteringsforpligtelser
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 15 Frivillig indberetning
-
|
|
DELAW
|
BDSG § 66 Benachrichtigung betroffener Personen bei Verletzungen des Schutzes personenbezogener Daten
(1) Hat eine Verletzung des Schutzes personenbezogener Daten voraussichtlich eine erhebliche Gefahr für Rechtsgüter betroffener Personen zur Folge, so hat der Verantwortliche die betroffenen Personen unverzüglich über den Vorfall zu benachrichtigen. (2) Die Benachrichtigung nach Absatz 1 hat in klarer und einfacher Sprache die Art der Verletzung des Schutzes personenbezogener Daten zu beschreiben und zumindest die in § 65 Absatz 3 Nummer 2 bis 4 genannten Informationen und Maßnahmen zu enthalten. (3) Von der Benachrichtigung nach Absatz 1 kann abgesehen werden, wenn - 1.
der Verantwortliche geeignete technische und organisatorische Sicherheitsvorkehrungen getroffen hat und diese Vorkehrungen auf die von der Verletzung des Schutzes personenbezogener Daten betroffenen Daten angewandt wurden; dies gilt insbesondere für Vorkehrungen wie Verschlüsselungen, durch die die Daten für unbefugte Personen unzugänglich gemacht wurden; - 2.
der Verantwortliche durch im Anschluss an die Verletzung getroffene Maßnahmen sichergestellt hat, dass aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach keine erhebliche Gefahr im Sinne des Absatzes 1 mehr besteht, oder - 3.
dies mit einem unverhältnismäßigen Aufwand verbunden wäre; in diesem Fall hat stattdessen eine öffentliche Bekanntmachung oder eine ähnliche Maßnahme zu erfolgen, durch die die betroffenen Personen vergleichbar wirksam informiert werden.
(4) Wenn der Verantwortliche die betroffenen Personen über eine Verletzung des Schutzes personenbezogener Daten nicht benachrichtigt hat, kann die oder der Bundesbeauftragte förmlich feststellen, dass ihrer oder seiner Auffassung nach die in Absatz 3 genannten Voraussetzungen nicht erfüllt sind. Hierbei hat sie oder er die Wahrscheinlichkeit zu berücksichtigen, dass die Verletzung eine erhebliche Gefahr im Sinne des Absatzes 1 zur Folge hat. (5) Die Benachrichtigung der betroffenen Personen nach Absatz 1 kann unter den in § 56 Absatz 2 genannten Voraussetzungen aufgeschoben, eingeschränkt oder unterlassen werden, soweit nicht die Interessen der betroffenen Person aufgrund der von der Verletzung ausgehenden erheblichen Gefahr im Sinne des Absatzes 1 überwiegen. (6) § 42 Absatz 4 findet entsprechende Anwendung.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 14 1
1. Som led i den ramme for IKT-risikostyring, der er omhandlet i artikel 6, stk. 1, sørger de finansielle enheder for at have krisekommunikationsplaner, der giver mulighed for ansvarlig offentliggørelse af som minimum større IKT-relaterede hændelser eller sårbarheder for kunder og modparter samt for offentligheden, alt efter hvad der er relevant.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 14 2
2. Som led i rammen for IKT-risikostyring gennemfører de finansielle enheder kommunikationsplaner for internt personale og for eksterne interessenter. Kommunikationspolitikkerne for personalet skal tage hensyn til behovet for at skelne mellem personale, der er involveret i IKT-risikostyring, navnlig det personale, der er ansvarligt for indsats og genopretning, og personale, der skal underrettes.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 14 3
3. Mindst én person i den finansielle enhed skal have til opgave at gennemføre kommunikationsstrategien for IKT-relaterede hændelser og til dette formål varetage funktionen vedrørende offentligheden og medierne.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 19 1
1. De finansielle enheder indberetter større IKT-relaterede hændelser til den relevante kompetente myndighed som omhandlet i artikel 46 i overensstemmelse med nærværende artikels stk. 4.
Hvis en finansiel enhed er underlagt tilsyn af mere end en national kompetent myndighed som omhandlet i artikel 46, udpeger medlemsstaterne en fælles kompetent myndighed som den relevante kompetente myndighed, der er ansvarlig for at udføre de i denne artikel omhandlede funktioner og opgaver.
Kreditinstitutter, der er klassificeret som signifikante i overensstemmelse med artikel 6, stk. 4, i forordning (EU) nr. 1024/2013, indberetter større IKT-relaterede hændelser til den relevante nationale kompetente myndighed, der er udpeget i overensstemmelse med artikel 4 i direktiv 2013/36/EU, og som øjeblikkeligt videresender den pågældende rapport til ECB.
Med henblik på første afsnit udarbejder de finansielle enheder efter indsamling og analyse af alle relevante oplysninger den indledende underretning og de rapporter, der er omhandlet i denne artikels stk. 4, ved brug af de modeller, der er omhandlet i artikel 20, og indgiver dem til den kompetente myndighed. Hvis det er teknisk umuligt at indgive den indledende underretning ved brug af modellen, meddeler de finansielle enheder den kompetente myndighed den på anden vis.
Den indledende underretning og de rapporter, der er omhandlet i stk. 4, skal indeholde alle de oplysninger, der er nødvendige for, at den kompetente myndighed kan fastslå, hvorvidt den større IKT-relaterede hændelse er væsentlig, og vurdere mulige grænseoverskridende virkninger.
Med forbehold af den finansielle enheds indberetning i henhold til første afsnit til den relevante kompetente myndighed kan medlemsstaterne derudover bestemme, at visse eller alle finansielle enheder også skal indgive den indledende underretning og hver enkelt rapport som omhandlet i denne artikels stk. 4 ved brug af de modeller, der er omhandlet i artikel 20, til de kompetente myndigheder eller til de enheder, der håndterer IT-sikkerhedshændelser (CSIRT'er), som er udpeget eller oprettet i overensstemmelse med direktiv (EU) 2022/2555.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 19 2
2. De finansielle enheder kan på frivillig basis underrette den relevante kompetente myndighed om væsentlige cybertrusler, når de anser truslen for at være relevant for det finansielle system, tjenestebrugere eller kunder. Den relevante kompetente myndighed kan give sådanne oplysninger til andre relevante myndigheder som omhandlet i stk. 6.
Kreditinstitutter, der er klassificeret som signifikante i overensstemmelse med artikel 6, stk. 4, i forordning (EU) nr. 1024/2013, kan på frivillig basis underrette den relevante nationale kompetente myndighed, der er udpeget i overensstemmelse med artikel 4 i direktiv 2013/36/EU, og som øjeblikkeligt videresender underretningen til ECB, om væsentlige cybertrusler.
Medlemsstaterne kan bestemme, at disse finansielle enheder, som på frivillig basis indgiver en underretning, jf. først afsnit, også kan videresende den pågældende underretning til de CSIRT'er, der er udpeget eller oprettet i overensstemmelse med direktiv (EU) 2022/2555
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 19 3
3. Hvis en større IKT-relateret hændelse indtræffer og har indflydelse på kunders finansielle interesser, underretter de finansielle enheder uden unødigt ophold, så snart de får kendskab til den, deres kunder om den større IKT-relaterede hændelse og om de foranstaltninger, der er truffet for at afbøde de negative virkninger af en sådan hændelse.
I tilfælde af en væsentlig cybertrussel underretter de finansielle enheder, hvis det er relevant, de af deres kunder, som potentielt er berørt heraf, om eventuelle passende beskyttelsesforanstaltninger, som sidstnævnte kan overveje at træffe.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 19 4
4. De finansielle enheder indgiver inden for de frister, der skal fastsættes i overensstemmelse med artikel 20, stk. 1, litra a), nr. ii), følgende til den relevante kompetente myndighed:
|
a)
|
en indledende underretning
|
|
b)
|
en foreløbig rapport efter den indledende underretning, jf. litra a), så snart den oprindelige hændelses status har ændret sig betydeligt, eller håndteringen af den større IKT-relaterede hændelse har ændret sig på grundlag af nye tilgængelige oplysninger, efterfulgt, alt efter hvad der er relevant, af ajourførte underretninger, hver gang der foreligger en relevant ajourføring af status, samt efter en specifik anmodning fra den kompetente myndighed
|
|
c)
|
en endelig rapport, når den grundlæggende årsagsanalyse er afsluttet, uanset om der allerede er gennemført afbødende foranstaltninger, og når tallene for de faktiske virkninger foreligger og kan erstatte skøn.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 19 5
5. De finansielle enheder kan i overensstemmelse med EU- og national sektorspecifik ret outsource opfyldelsen af indberetningsforpligtelserne i henhold til denne artikel til en tredjepartstjenesteudbyder. I tilfælde af en sådan outsourcing er den finansielle enhed fortsat fuldt ud ansvarlig for at opfylde kravene vedrørende indberetning af hændelser.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 45 3
3. De finansielle enheder underretter de kompetente myndigheder om deres deltagelse i de i stk. 1 omhandlede ordninger for informationsudveksling efter validering af deres medlemskab eller, alt efter hvad der er relevant, ophør af deres medlemskab, når det træder i kraft.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 96 Indberetning af hændelser
-
|
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.
|