+Chain of Custody & Forensics
---+Licensed Forensic Investigators
|
Chain of Custody & Forensics
Description
Mechanisms exist to perform digital forensics and maintain the integrity of the chain of custody, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and industry-recognized secure practices.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.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
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to perform digital forensics and maintain the integrity of the chain of custody, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and industry-recognized secure practices.
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. Übersicht
| Bezeichnung |
Standard |
|
Licensed Forensic Investigators
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize licensed forensic investigators to perform data analysis for evidentiary purposes that may be used in legal proceedings or to prove wrongdoing.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ For eDiscovery, IT and/or cybersecurity personnel manually identify and collect Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in order to respond to a request from a lawsuit or investigation.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ Incident responders are proficient on their specific IRP role(s) and responsibilities through recurring training events (e.g., annual rock drill).
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to utilize licensed forensic investigators to perform data analysis for evidentiary purposes that may be used in legal proceedings or to prove wrongdoing.
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 Referenzen
1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen
1.3 Zugehörige Regulierungen
2. Identifizierte Anforderungen
Anforderungen
| Quelle |
Anforderung |
3. Zugehörige Regulierungen
Regulierungen
| Quelle |
Regulierung |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 13 (2)
Nach Störungen ihrer Haupttätigkeiten infolge schwerwiegender IKT-bezogener Vorfälle sehen Finanzunternehmen nachträgliche Prüfungen IKT-bezogener Vorfälle vor, die die Ursachen für Störungen untersuchen und die erforderlichen Verbesserungen an IKT-Vorgängen oder im Rahmen der in Artikel 11 genannten IKT-Geschäftsfortführungsleitlinie identifizieren. Finanzunternehmen, die keine Kleinstunternehmen sind, teilen den zuständigen Behörden auf Verlangen die Änderungen mit, die nach der Prüfung IKT-bezogener Vorfälle gemäß Unterabsatz 1 vorgenommen wurden. Bei den in Unterabsatz 1 genannten nachträglichen Prüfungen IKT-bezogener Vorfälle wird ermittelt, ob die festgelegten Verfahren befolgt und die ergriffenen Maßnahmen wirksam waren, unter anderem in Bezug auf:
a)
die Schnelligkeit bei der Reaktion auf Sicherheitswarnungen und bei der Bestimmung der Auswirkungen von IKT-bezogenen Vorfällen und ihrer Schwere;
b)
die Qualität und Schnelligkeit bei der Durchführung forensischer Analysen, sofern dies als zweckmäßig erachtet wird;
c)
die Wirksamkeit der Eskalation von Vorfällen innerhalb des Finanzunternehmens;
d)
die Wirksamkeit interner und externer Kommunikation.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 13 (3)
Erkenntnisse aus gemäß den Artikeln 26 und 27 durchgeführten Tests der digitalen operationalen Resilienz und aus realen IKT-bezogenen Vorfällen, insbesondere Cyberangriffen, werden neben Herausforderungen, die sich bei der Aktivierung von IKT- Geschäftsfortführungsplänen und IKT-Reaktions- und Wiederherstellungsplänen ergeben, zusammen mit einschlägigen Informationen, die mit Gegenparteien ausgetauscht und im Rahmen aufsichtlicher Überprüfungen bewertet werden, kontinuierlich ordnungsgemäß in den IKT-Risikobewertungsprozess einbezogen. Diese Erkenntnisse bilden die Grundlage für angemessene Überprüfungen relevanter Komponenten des IKT-Risikomanagementrahmens gemäß Artikel 6 Absatz 1.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 23 Berichtspflichten
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 22 Richtlinien für die Behandlung IKT-bezogener Vorfälle
Artikel 22
Richtlinien für die Behandlung IKT-bezogener Vorfälle
Im Rahmen des Mechanismus zur Erkennung anomaler Aktivitäten, worunter auch Probleme bei der Leistung von IKT-Netzwerken und IKT-bezogene Vorfälle fallen, entwickeln, dokumentieren und implementieren die Finanzunternehmen Richtlinien für IKT-bezogene Vorfälle, in deren Rahmen sie
a)
den in Artikel 17 der Verordnung (EU) 2022/2554 genannten Prozess für die Behandlung IKT-bezogener Vorfälle dokumentieren,
b)
eine Liste der relevanten Kontakte erstellen, die mit internen Funktionen und externen Interessenträgern, die direkt an der IKT-Betriebssicherheit beteiligt sind, unter anderem in Bezug auf Folgendes unterhalten werden:
i)
die Erkennung und Überwachung von Cyberbedrohungen,
ii)
die Erkennung anomaler Aktivitäten,
iii)
das Schwachstellenmanagement;
c)
technische, organisatorische und operative Mechanismen zur Unterstützung des Prozesses für die Behandlung IKT-bezogener Vorfälle einrichten, implementieren und betreiben, darunter auch Mechanismen, die eine rasche Erkennung anomaler Tätigkeiten und Verhaltensweisen gemäß Artikel 23 ermöglichen,
▼C1
d)
gemäß Artikel 8 Absatz 2 der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2024/1772 der Kommission (
2
) und gemäß allen nach Unionsrecht geltenden Speichervorschriften alle Nachweise im Zusammenhang mit IKT-bezogenen Vorfällen so lange aufbewahren, wie es für die Zwecke der Datenerhebung unbedingt erforderlich und der Kritikalität der betreffenden Unternehmensfunktionen, unterstützenden Prozesse sowie IKT- und Informationsassets angemessen ist,
▼B
e)
Mechanismen zur Analyse bedeutender oder wiederkehrender IKT-bezogener Vorfälle und -Muster in Bezug auf Anzahl und Auftreten IKT-bezogener Vorfälle einrichten und implementieren.
Für die Zwecke des Buchstabens d bewahren die Finanzunternehmen die dort genannten Nachweise auf sichere Weise auf.
|
Verknüpfte Vorgänge
- Secure Controls Framework -
EN: GRCA includes the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) content, © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, used under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. SCF control numbers, names, descriptions and mappings appear exactly as published by the SCF Council – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA may group or reorder SCF content for display, which does not change SCF content; the mappings are shown as links to the frameworks they name. Learn more at https://securecontrolsframework.com.
DE: GRCA enthält Inhalte des Secure Controls Framework® (SCF), © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, genutzt unter der Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. Nummern, Namen, Beschreibungen und Zuordnungen der SCF-Controls erscheinen genau so, wie der SCF Council sie veröffentlicht – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA gruppiert oder sortiert SCF-Inhalte für die Anzeige, ohne sie zu verändern; die Zuordnungen erscheinen als Verknüpfungen zu den genannten Regelwerken. Mehr unter https://securecontrolsframework.com.
|