+Vulnerability Remediation Process
---+Centralized Management of Flaw Remediation Processes
---+Continuous Vulnerability Remediation Activities
---+Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Mitigations

Vulnerability Remediation Process

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure that vulnerabilities are properly identified, tracked and remediated.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Patch software when updates are released

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Vulnerability remediation policy
∙ Prioritized patching schedule

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal vulnerability remediation process
∙ Risk-based prioritization
∙ Remediation SLAs

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Enterprise vulnerability remediation program
∙ Defined SLAs by severity
∙ Tracking and reporting

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise vulnerability management platform (e.g., Tenable.io, Qualys)
∙ Automated remediation tracking
∙ SIEM integration

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

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with VPM 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 ensure that vulnerabilities are properly identified, tracked and remediated.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.

1. Oversigt

Centralized Management of Flaw Remediation Processes

Description

Mechanisms exist to centrally-manage the flaw remediation process.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Centrally track vulnerability status across all systems

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Centralized vulnerability tracking spreadsheet or tool

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Centralized vulnerability management platform (e.g., Tenable.io, Qualys)

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Enterprise centralized vulnerability management platform with integrated asset management

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise vulnerability management platform (e.g., Tenable One, Qualys VMDR)
∙ Full asset-vulnerability integration
∙ Automated centralized management

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

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with VPM 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 centrally-manage the flaw remediation process.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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.
Continuous Vulnerability Remediation Activities

Description

Mechanisms exist to address new threats and vulnerabilities on an ongoing basis and ensure assets are protected against known attacks.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Continuously monitor for new vulnerabilities in used software

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Continuous vulnerability scanning and remediation cycle

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal continuous vulnerability management program
∙ Regular scan cadence

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Enterprise continuous vulnerability management (e.g., Tenable.io, Qualys)
∙ Automated remediation workflows

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise continuous vulnerability management platform
∙ Real-time scanning
∙ Automated patching integration
∙ SIEM/SOAR integration

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

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with VPM 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 address new threats and vulnerabilities on an ongoing basis and ensure assets are protected against known attacks.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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.
Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Mitigations

Description

Mechanisms exist to prioritize remediation and mitigation of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) by:
(1) Reducing or removing public exposure to exploitation; and
(2) Expediting patch deployment actions.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Subscribe to CISA KEV catalog alerts (https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog)
∙ Prioritize patching KEV-listed vulnerabilities within CISA timeframes

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ CISA KEV catalog subscription and monitoring
∙ Priority patching for KEV-listed vulnerabilities within CISA-defined windows

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ KEV-integrated vulnerability management program
∙ CISA KEV catalog integration with vulnerability scanner
∙ Accelerated remediation SLAs for KEV items

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Enterprise vulnerability management with KEV prioritization
∙ Automated KEV alerting and remediation tracking
∙ Defined KEV remediation SLAs

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise KEV management program
∙ Automated CISA KEV catalog integration
∙ Real-time KEV exposure tracking and alerting
∙ Risk-based KEV remediation with board-level visibility for material exposures

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

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-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 apply software patches through an informal process.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability 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 define the breadth and depth of coverage for vulnerability scanning that covers system components scanned and types of vulnerabilities that are checked for.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel maintain a structured process to apply software patches and other vulnerability remediation efforts.

Level 3 Well Defined

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with VPM 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 prioritize remediation and mitigation of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) by:
(1) Reducing or removing public exposure to exploitation; and
(2) Expediting patch deployment actions.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.

1.1 Referencer

1.2 Identificerede krav

1.3 Relaterede reguleringer

2. Identificerede krav

Krav

3. Relaterede reguleringer

Reguleringer
EULAW Artikel 25 1

1.   Det i artikel 24 omhandlede program for test af den digitale operationelle modstandsdygtighed skal i overensstemmelse med kriterierne i artikel 4, stk. 2, indeholde bestemmelser om gennemførelse af relevante test såsom sårbarhedsvurderinger og -scanninger, open source-analyser, vurderinger af netsikkerheden, mangelanalyser, fysiske sikkerhedsgennemgange, spørgeskemaer og scanningssoftwareløsninger, gennemgange af kildekoder, når det er praktisk muligt, scenariebaserede test, kompatibilitetstest, præstationstest, end-to-end-test og penetrationstest.
EULAW Artikel 25 2

2.   Værdipapircentraler og centrale modparter foretager sårbarhedsvurderinger inden indførelse eller genindførelse af nye eller eksisterende applikationer og infrastrukturkomponenter og IKT-tjenester, der understøtter den finansielle enheds kritiske eller vigtige funktioner.
EULAW Artikel 25 3

3.   Mikrovirksomheder gennemfører de i stk. 1 omhandlede test ved at kombinere en risikobaseret tilgang med strategisk planlægning af IKT-test under behørig hensyntagen til behovet for at opretholde en afbalanceret tilgang mellem omfanget af ressourcer og den tid, der skal afsættes til IKT-test som omhandlet i denne artikel, på den ene side og den hastende karakter, risikotype og informationsaktivernes og de leverede tjenesters kritiske betydning samt alle andre relevante faktorer, herunder den finansielle enheds evne til at tage kalkulerede risici, på den anden side.
EULAW Artikel 10 Sårbarheds- og korrektionsstyring
-
EULAW Artikel 10 Sårbarheds- og korrektionsstyring
-
EULAW Artikel 10 Sårbarheds- og korrektionsstyring
-
EULAW Artikel 34 Sikkerhed i forbindelse med IKT-operationer

Artikel 34

Sikkerhed i forbindelse med IKT-operationer

De finansielle enheder, der er omhandlet i artikel 16, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2022/2554, gør følgende som en del af deres systemer, protokoller og værktøjer og for alle IKT-aktiver:

a) 

overvåger og forvalter livscyklussen for alle IKT-aktiver

b) 

overvåger, om IKT-aktiverne understøttes af tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester fra finansielle enheder, hvis det er relevant

c) 

identificerer kapacitetskrav til deres IKT-aktiver og foranstaltninger til at opretholde og forbedre IKT-systemernes tilgængelighed og effektivitet og forebygge mangel på IKT-kapacitet, inden de forekommer

d) 

foretager automatiseret sårbarhedsscanning og automatiserede vurderinger af IKT-aktiver, som står i rimeligt forhold til deres klassificering, jf. artikel 30, stk. 1, og til IKT-aktivets overordnede risikoprofil, og tager korrektioner i brug for at afhjælpe konstaterede sårbarheder

e) 

styrer de risici, der er forbundet med forældede, ikkeunderstøttede eller legacy-IKT-aktiver

f) 

logfører hændelser, som vedrører logisk og fysisk adgangskontrol, IKT-operationer, herunder system- og netværkstrafikaktiviteter, og styring af IKT-ændringer

g) 

identificerer og gennemfører foranstaltninger til overvågning og analyse af oplysninger om anormale aktiviteter og anormal adfærd, som vedrører kritiske eller vigtige IKT-operationer

h) 

gennemfører foranstaltninger til overvågning af relevante og ajourførte oplysninger om cybertrusler

i) 

gennemfører foranstaltninger til at konstatere mulige informationslækager, ondsindede kodetyper og andre sikkerhedstrusler og offentligt kendte sårbarheder i software og hardware og tjekker, om der findes dertil svarende nye sikkerhedsopdateringer.

Med henblik på litra f) tilpasser finansielle enheder logfilernes detaljeringsgrad i forhold til deres formål og anvendelse af det IKT-aktiv, der producerer disse logfiler.
EULAW Artikel 21 Foranstaltninger til styring af cybersikkerhedsrisici
-
EULAW Artikel 13 Fabrikantens forpligtelser
-

Linkede sager

Sagslinks
is related to Semi-Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to Detect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Unauthorized Privilege Elevation
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks Reduced Operational Productivity
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks Revenue Loss
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Loss of Competitive Advantage
blocks Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
blocks Exfiltration Over Bluetooth
blocks Remote Desktop Protocol
blocks Distributed Component Object Model
blocks SSH
blocks VNC
blocks Windows Remote Management
blocks Network Service Discovery
blocks Windows Management Instrumentation
blocks Exfiltration Over Physical Medium
blocks Exfiltration over USB
blocks Scheduled Task/Job
blocks At
blocks Cron
blocks Scheduled Task
blocks Command and Scripting Interpreter
blocks PowerShell
blocks Visual Basic
blocks JavaScript
blocks Exploitation for Privilege Escalation
blocks Valid Accounts
blocks Replication Through Removable Media
blocks Communication Through Removable Media
blocks SSH Authorized Keys
blocks Trusted Developer Utilities Proxy Execution
blocks MSBuild
blocks ClickOnce
blocks External Remote Services
blocks Office Application Startup
blocks Office Template Macros
blocks Software Extensions
blocks Exploit Public-Facing Application
blocks Supply Chain Compromise
blocks Compromise Software Dependencies and Development Tools
blocks Compromise Software Supply Chain
blocks Malicious Image
blocks Exploitation of Remote Services
blocks Exploitation for Stealth
blocks Exploitation for Credential Access
blocks Data from Information Repositories
blocks Confluence
blocks Sharepoint
blocks Code Repositories
blocks Messaging Applications
blocks System Binary Proxy Execution
blocks CMSTP
blocks InstallUtil
blocks Mshta
blocks Odbcconf
blocks Regsvcs/Regasm
blocks Verclsid
blocks Mavinject
blocks MMC
blocks Electron Applications
blocks Template Injection
blocks Domain Trust Discovery
blocks Domain or Tenant Policy Modification
blocks Server Software Component
blocks SQL Stored Procedures
blocks Transport Agent
blocks Web Shell
blocks IIS Components
blocks Terminal Services DLL
blocks Implant Internal Image
blocks Steal Application Access Token
blocks Data from Cloud Storage
blocks ROMMONkit
blocks TFTP Boot
blocks Create or Modify System Process
blocks Screensaver
blocks Emond
blocks Kernel Modules and Extensions
blocks Re-opened Applications
blocks LSASS Driver
blocks Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism
blocks Bypass User Account Control
blocks Sudo and Sudo Caching
blocks TCC Manipulation
blocks Unsecured Credentials
blocks Credentials In Files
blocks Credentials in Registry
blocks Private Keys
blocks Group Policy Preferences
blocks Adversary-in-the-Middle
blocks AS-REP Roasting
blocks Inter-Process Communication
blocks Dynamic Data Exchange
blocks Archive Collected Data
blocks Archive via Utility
blocks Remote Service Session Hijacking
blocks SSH Hijacking
blocks RDP Hijacking
blocks Phishing
blocks Hijack Execution Flow
blocks DLL
blocks Dylib Hijacking
blocks Executable Installer File Permissions Weakness
blocks Path Interception by PATH Environment Variable
blocks Path Interception by Search Order Hijacking
blocks Path Interception by Unquoted Path
blocks Services File Permissions Weakness
blocks Modify Cloud Compute Infrastructure
blocks Create Snapshot
blocks Create Cloud Instance
blocks Delete Cloud Instance
blocks Build Image on Host
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks OT Safety / Process Availability Failure
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OPS-18.01B
blocks OPS-18.02B
blocks OPS-18.03B
blocks OPS-18.04B
blocks OPS-22.07B
blocks OPS-22.08B
blocks OPS-25.03B
blocks OPS-25.01AC
blocks COS-03.04B
blocks DEV-01.01B
blocks DEV-07.05B
blocks PSS-02.03B
blocks PSS-03.02B
blocks PSS-09.03B
is blocked by VPM-06 Vulnerability Remediation Process – Assessment Procedure
blocks PM-04 Plan of Action and Milestones Process
blocks SC-18(01) Identify Unacceptable Code and Take Corrective Actions
blocks PM-04 [P] Plan of Action and Milestones Process
blocks 03.11.02 Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning
blocks 03.12.02 Plan of Action and Milestones
blocks 03.14.01 Flaw Remediation
blocks 03.11.11E Discoverable Information
blocks ID.RA-08 Processes for receiving, analyzing, and responding to vulnerability disclosures are established
blocks PR.PS-02 Software is maintained, replaced, and removed commensurate with risk
blocks RV.2.2 Plan and implement risk responses for vulnerabilities.
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "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.