+Monitoring Physical Access
---+Intrusion Alarms / Surveillance Equipment
---+Monitoring Physical Access To Critical Systems
|
Monitoring Physical Access
Description
Physical access control mechanisms exist to monitor for, detect and respond to physical security incidents.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
∙ Physical security guards
∙ Staffed lobby (receptionist)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
∙ Physical security guards
∙ Staffed lobby (receptionist)
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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES 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 PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Where applicable, physical security controls and technologies are configured to monitor for, detect and respond to physical security incidents.
Level 3 Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES 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 PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A facilities management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access).
▪ 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 PES 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 physical security capability exists to monitor for, detect and respond to physical security incidents.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 |
|
Intrusion Alarms / Surveillance Equipment
|
Description
Physical access control mechanisms exist to monitor physical intrusion alarms and surveillance equipment.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES 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 PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Where applicable, physical security controls and technologies are configured to monitor for, detect and respond to physical security incidents.
Level 3 Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES 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 PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A facilities management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access).
▪ 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 PES 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 physical security capability exists to monitor physical intrusion alarms and surveillance equipment.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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.
|
|
Monitoring Physical Access To Critical Systems
|
Description
Facility security mechanisms exist to monitor physical access to critical systems or sensitive and/or regulated data, in addition to the physical access monitoring of the facility.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Physical security policy
∙ Door locks and key management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Physical security policy
∙ Access log
∙ Visitor procedures
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Physical security guards
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Physical security guards
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Physical security guards
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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
▪ Facility security mechanisms exist to monitor physical access to business-critical Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), in addition to the physical access monitoring of the facility.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES 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 PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Where applicable, physical security controls and technologies are configured to monitor for, detect and respond to physical security incidents.
Level 3 Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES 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 PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A facilities management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access).
▪ 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 PES 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 physical security capability exists to monitor physical access to critical systems or sensitive/regulated data, in addition to the physical access monitoring of the facility.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
1.1 Referencer
1.2 Identificerede krav
1.3 Relaterede reguleringer
2. Identificerede krav
3. Relaterede reguleringer
Reguleringer
| Kilde |
Regulering |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 12 Logføring
-
|
|
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.
|
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.
|