+Software & Firmware Patching
---+Automated Software & Firmware Updates
---+Software Patch Integrity
---+Automated Remediation Status
|
Software & Firmware Patching
Description
Mechanisms exist to conduct software patching for all deployed Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), including firmware.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
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.
▪ 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 conduct software patching for all deployed Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), including firmware.
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
| Titel |
Standard |
|
Automated Software & Firmware Updates
|
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to install the latest stable versions of security-relevant software and firmware updates.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Azure Update Manager (https://azure.microsoft.com)
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Azure Update Manager (https://azure.microsoft.com)
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Azure Update Manager (https://azure.microsoft.com)
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Azure Update Manager (https://azure.microsoft.com)
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Azure Update Manager (https://azure.microsoft.com)
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
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.
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 automatically install the latest stable versions of security-relevant software and firmware updates.
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.
|
|
Software Patch Integrity
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure software and/or firmware patches are:
(1) Obtained from trusted sources; and
(2) Checked for integrity.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Verify patch integrity before installing (check hash/signature)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Patch integrity verification policy
∙ Check digital signatures before installation
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal patch integrity verification process
∙ Cryptographic signature verification
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise patch integrity verification program
∙ Automated signature checking
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise patch management with automated integrity verification (e.g., SCCM, Tanium)
∙ Cryptographic signature enforcement
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 software and/or firmware patches are:
(1) Obtained from trusted sources; and
(2) Checked for integrity.
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.
|
|
Automated Remediation Status
|
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to determine the state of system components with regard to flaw remediation.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Check remediation status of patched systems
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Automated remediation verification scans after patching
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal remediation verification process
∙ Rescan after patching
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise automated remediation verification scanning
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise vulnerability management with automated remediation status tracking and verification
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 automatically determine the state of system components with regard to flaw remediation.
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 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 9 Beskyttelse og forebyggelse
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 9 4
4. Som led i den ramme for IKT-risikostyring, der er omhandlet i artikel 6, stk. 1, skal de finansielle enheder
|
a)
|
udvikle og dokumentere en informationssikkerhedspolitik, der fastlægger regler for beskyttelse af tilgængeligheden, autenticiteten, integriteten og fortroligheden af data, informationsaktiver og IKT-aktiver, herunder deres kunders, hvis det er relevant
|
|
b)
|
ved at følge en risikobaseret tilgang indføre en forsvarlig forvaltningsstruktur for netværk og infrastrukturer ved anvendelse af passende teknikker, metoder og protokoller, der kan omfatte gennemførelse af automatiske mekanismer til isolering af de berørte informationsaktiver i tilfælde af cyberangreb
|
|
c)
|
gennemføre politikker, der begrænser den fysiske eller logiske adgang til informationsaktiver og IKT-aktiver udelukkende til, hvad der er påkrævet for legitime og godkendte funktioner og aktiviteter, og med henblik herpå indføre en række politikker, procedurer og kontroller, der vedrører adgangsrettigheder og sikrer forsvarlig forvaltning heraf
|
|
d)
|
gennemføre politikker og protokoller for stærke autentificeringsmekanismer på grundlag af relevante standarder og særlige kontrolsystemer og beskyttelsesforanstaltninger for krypteringsnøgler, hvorigennem data krypteres baseret på resultaterne fra godkendt dataklassificering og godkendte IKT-risikovurderingsprocesser
|
|
e)
|
gennemføre dokumenterede politikker, procedurer og kontroller for styring af IKT-ændringer, herunder ændringer af software, hardware, firmwarekomponenter, systemer eller sikkerhedsparametre, som er baseret på en risikovurderingstilgang og er en integreret del af den finansielle enheds samlede ændringsstyringsproces, for at sikre, at alle ændringer af IKT-systemer registreres, testes, vurderes, godkendes, gennemføres og efterprøves på en kontrolleret måde
|
|
f)
|
sørge for, at der indføres passende og omfattende dokumenterede politikker for programrettelser og opdateringer.
|
Med henblik på første afsnit, litra b), udformer de finansielle enheder infrastrukturen for netværkstilslutning på en sådan måde, at den kan afbrydes eller segmenteres øjeblikkeligt for at minimere og forhindre afsmitning, navnlig i forbindelse med indbyrdes forbundne finansielle processer.
Med henblik på første afsnit, litra e), skal IKT-ændringsstyringsprocessen godkendes på passende ledelsesniveauer og omfatte specifikke protokoller.
|
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.
|