+Identification & Authentication for Organizational Users
---+Out-of-Band Authentication (OOBA)
---+Acceptance of PIV Credentials
|
Identification & Authentication for Organizational Users
Description
Mechanisms exist to uniquely identify and centrally Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) organizational users and processes acting on behalf of organizational users.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
▪ Active Directory (AD), or a similar technologies, are used to centrally manage identities and permissions, but asset/process owners are authorized to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 uniquely identify and centrally Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) organizational users and processes acting on behalf of organizational users.
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 |
|
Out-of-Band Authentication (OOBA)
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement Out-of-Band Authentication (OOBA) under specific conditions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
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
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 implement Out-of-Band Authentication (OOBA) under specific conditions.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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.
|
|
Acceptance of PIV Credentials
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to accept and electronically verify organizational Personal Identity Verification (PIV) credentials.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 accept and electronically verify organizational Personal Identity Verification (PIV) credentials.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
1.1 Referenzen
1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen
1.3 Zugehörige Regulierungen
2. Identifizierte Anforderungen
Anforderungen
| Quelle |
Anforderung |
3. Zugehörige Regulierungen
Regulierungen
| Quelle |
Regulierung |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 20 Identitätsmanagement
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 20 Identitätsmanagement
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 21 Zugangskontrolle
Artikel 21
Im Rahmen der Kontrolle der Zugangs- und Zugriffsrechte entwickeln, dokumentieren und implementieren die Finanzunternehmen Richtlinien, die alles Folgende vorsehen:
a)
die Zuweisung der Rechte auf Zugang zu IKT-Assets nach dem Grundsatz „Kenntnis nur, wenn nötig“ („Need-to-know“), nach dem Grundsatz der Nutzungsnotwendigkeit („Need-to-use“) und nach dem Grundsatz der minimalen Berechtigung („Least privileges“), auch für den Fern- und Notfallzugang,
b)
die Abtrennung der Aufgaben, einen ungerechtfertigten Zugang zu kritischen Daten zu verhindern oder die Zuweisung einer Kombination von Zugriffsrechten zu verhindern, die zur Umgehung von Kontrollen genutzt werden können,
c)
eine Bestimmung zur Zurechenbarkeit, die die Nutzung generischer und gemeinsam genutzter Nutzerkonten so weit wie möglich einschränkt und die sicherstellt, dass die in den IKT-Systemen vorgenommenen Handlungen jederzeit einem Nutzer zugeordnet werden können,
d)
eine Bestimmung zur Beschränkung des Zugangs zu IKT-Assets, die Kontrollen und Tools zur Verhinderung eines unbefugten Zugangs vorsieht,
e)
Kontoverwaltungsverfahren für die Gewährung, Änderung oder Entziehung von Zugangsrechten für Nutzerkonten und generische Konten, insbesondere auch für generische Administratorkonten, die alles Folgende beinhalten:
i)
die Zuweisung der Aufgaben und Zuständigkeiten für die Gewährung, Überprüfung und Entziehung von Zugangsrechten,
ii)
die Zuweisung eines bevorrechtigten Zugangs, eines Notfallzugangs und eines Administratorzugangs nach dem Grundsatz der Nutzungsnotwendigkeit oder ad hoc bei allen IKT-Systemen,
iii)
den umgehenden Entzug der Zugangsrechte bei Beendigung des Beschäftigungsverhältnisses oder wenn der Zugang nicht länger erforderlich ist,
iv)
die Aktualisierung der Zugangsrechte, wenn Änderungen notwendig sind, mindestens aber einmal jährlich bei allen IKT-Systemen mit Ausnahme derjenigen, die kritische oder wichtige Funktionen unterstützen, und mindestens alle sechs Monate bei IKT-Systemen, die kritische oder wichtige Funktionen unterstützen;
f)
Authentifizierungsmethoden, die alles Folgende vorsehen:
i)
die Nutzung von Authentifizierungsmethoden ist der gemäß Artikel 8 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EU) 2022/2554 vorgenommenen Klassifizierung und dem Gesamtrisikoprofil der IKT-Assets angemessen und trägt führenden Praktiken Rechnung,
ii)
die Nutzung starker Authentifizierungsmethoden entspricht den führenden Praktiken und Techniken für den Fernzugang zum Netz des Finanzunternehmens, für den bevorrechtigten Zugang, für den Zugang zu IKT-Assets, die kritische oder wichtige Funktionen unterstützen oder IKT-Assets, die öffentlich zugänglich sind,
g)
physische Zugangskontrollen, die Folgendes einschließen:
i)
die Identifizierung und Protokollierung natürlicher Personen mit Zugangsberechtigung für Räumlichkeiten, Rechenzentren und die vom Finanzunternehmen designierten sensiblen Bereiche, in denen IKT- und Informationsassets untergebracht sind,
ii)
die Gewährung der Rechte auf physischen Zugang zu kritischen IKT-Assets nur für befugte Personen nach dem Grundsatz „Kenntnis nur, wenn nötig“ und dem Grundsatz der minimalen Berechtigung sowie ad hoc,
iii)
die Überwachung des physischen Zugangs zu Räumlichkeiten, Rechenzentren und die vom Finanzunternehmen designierten sensiblen Bereiche, in denen IKT- und/oder Informationsassets untergebracht sind,
iv)
die Überprüfung der physischen Zugangsrechte, um zu gewährleisten, dass unnötige Zugangsrechte umgehend entzogen werden.
Für die Zwecke von Buchstabe e Ziffer i legen die Finanzunternehmen die Speicherfrist fest und tragen dabei den Geschäftszielen und den Zielen für die Informationssicherheit, den Gründen für die Protokollierung des Ereignisses und den Ergebnissen der IKT-Risikobewertung Rechnung.
Für die Zwecke von Buchstabe e Ziffer ii verwenden die Finanzunternehmen für die Ausführung administrativer Aufgaben in IKT-Systemen nach Möglichkeit spezielle Konten. Für das Management des bevorrechtigten Zugangs greifen die Finanzunternehmen soweit möglich und angemessen auf automatisierte Lösungen zurück.
Für die Zwecke von Buchstabe g Ziffer i müssen die Identifizierung und Protokollierung der Bedeutung der Räumlichkeiten, der Rechenzentren und der designierten sensiblen Bereiche und der Kritikalität der dort untergebrachten Geschäftstätigkeiten oder IKT-Systeme angemessen sein.
Für die Zwecke von Buchstabe g Ziffer iii muss die Überwachung der gemäß Artikel 8 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EU) 2022/2554 vorgenommenen Klassifizierung und der Kritikalität des Zugangsbereichs angemessen sein.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 33 Zugangskontrolle
Artikel 33
Die in Artikel 16 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EU) 2022/2554 genannten Finanzunternehmen erarbeiten, dokumentieren und implementieren Verfahren für die Kontrolle des logischen und physischen Zugangs und setzen diese Verfahren durch, überwachen sie und überprüfen sie regelmäßig. Diese Verfahren umfassen die folgenden Elemente der Kontrolle des logischen und physischen Zugangs:
a)
Verwaltung der Rechte auf Zugang zu Informationsassets, IKT-Assets und den durch sie unterstützten Funktionen sowie zu kritischen Betriebsstandorten des Finanzunternehmens nach dem Grundsatz „Kenntnis nur, wenn nötig“ („Need-to-know“), nach dem Grundsatz der Nutzungsnotwendigkeit („Need-to-use“) und nach dem Grundsatz der minimalen Berechtigung („Least privileges“), auch für den Fern- und Notfallzugang;
b)
Zurechenbarkeit der Nutzer, die sicherstellt, dass die Nutzer, die Handlungen in den IKT-Systemen vorgenommen haben, identifiziert werden können;
c)
Kontoverwaltungsverfahren für die Gewährung, Veränderung oder Entziehung von Zugangsrechten für Nutzerkonten und generische Konten, insbesondere auch für generische Administratorkonten;
d)
Authentifizierungsmethoden, die der in Artikel 30 Absatz 1 genannten Klassifizierung und dem Gesamtrisikoprofil der IKT-Assets angemessen sind und auf führenden Praktiken beruhen;
e)
regelmäßige Überprüfung der Zugangsrechte und Entziehung nicht mehr benötigter Zugangsrechte.
Für die Zwecke von Buchstabe c weist das Finanzunternehmen den privilegierten Zugang, den Notfallzugang und den Administratorzugang bei allen IKT-Systemen nach dem Grundsatz der Nutzungsnotwendigkeit oder ad hoc zu und protokolliert den Zugang nach Maßgabe von Artikel 34 Absatz 1 Buchstabe f in einer Log-Datei.
Für die Zwecke von Buchstabe d wenden die Finanzunternehmen starke Authentifizierungsmethoden an, die sich auf führende Praktiken für den Fernzugriff auf das Netz der Finanzunternehmen, für den privilegierten Zugang und für den Zugang zu IKT-Assets zur Unterstützung kritischer oder wichtiger Funktionen stützen, die öffentlich verfügbar sind.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 33 Zugangskontrolle
Artikel 33
Die in Artikel 16 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EU) 2022/2554 genannten Finanzunternehmen erarbeiten, dokumentieren und implementieren Verfahren für die Kontrolle des logischen und physischen Zugangs und setzen diese Verfahren durch, überwachen sie und überprüfen sie regelmäßig. Diese Verfahren umfassen die folgenden Elemente der Kontrolle des logischen und physischen Zugangs:
a)
Verwaltung der Rechte auf Zugang zu Informationsassets, IKT-Assets und den durch sie unterstützten Funktionen sowie zu kritischen Betriebsstandorten des Finanzunternehmens nach dem Grundsatz „Kenntnis nur, wenn nötig“ („Need-to-know“), nach dem Grundsatz der Nutzungsnotwendigkeit („Need-to-use“) und nach dem Grundsatz der minimalen Berechtigung („Least privileges“), auch für den Fern- und Notfallzugang;
b)
Zurechenbarkeit der Nutzer, die sicherstellt, dass die Nutzer, die Handlungen in den IKT-Systemen vorgenommen haben, identifiziert werden können;
c)
Kontoverwaltungsverfahren für die Gewährung, Veränderung oder Entziehung von Zugangsrechten für Nutzerkonten und generische Konten, insbesondere auch für generische Administratorkonten;
d)
Authentifizierungsmethoden, die der in Artikel 30 Absatz 1 genannten Klassifizierung und dem Gesamtrisikoprofil der IKT-Assets angemessen sind und auf führenden Praktiken beruhen;
e)
regelmäßige Überprüfung der Zugangsrechte und Entziehung nicht mehr benötigter Zugangsrechte.
Für die Zwecke von Buchstabe c weist das Finanzunternehmen den privilegierten Zugang, den Notfallzugang und den Administratorzugang bei allen IKT-Systemen nach dem Grundsatz der Nutzungsnotwendigkeit oder ad hoc zu und protokolliert den Zugang nach Maßgabe von Artikel 34 Absatz 1 Buchstabe f in einer Log-Datei.
Für die Zwecke von Buchstabe d wenden die Finanzunternehmen starke Authentifizierungsmethoden an, die sich auf führende Praktiken für den Fernzugriff auf das Netz der Finanzunternehmen, für den privilegierten Zugang und für den Zugang zu IKT-Assets zur Unterstützung kritischer oder wichtiger Funktionen stützen, die öffentlich verfügbar sind.
|
Verknüpfte Vorgänge
Verknüpfungen
| Verknüpfungstyp |
Vorgang |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 09 |
|
is related to
|
Technology |
|
is related to
|
Protect |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
OS Credential Dumping |
|
blocks
|
LSASS Memory |
|
blocks
|
Security Account Manager |
|
blocks
|
NTDS |
|
blocks
|
LSA Secrets |
|
blocks
|
Cached Domain Credentials |
|
blocks
|
DCSync |
|
blocks
|
Proc Filesystem |
|
blocks
|
/etc/passwd and /etc/shadow |
|
blocks
|
Remote Services |
|
blocks
|
Remote Desktop Protocol |
|
blocks
|
SMB/Windows Admin Shares |
|
blocks
|
Distributed Component Object Model |
|
blocks
|
SSH |
|
blocks
|
VNC |
|
blocks
|
Windows Remote Management |
|
blocks
|
Cloud Services |
|
blocks
|
Direct Cloud VM Connections |
|
blocks
|
Double File Extension |
|
blocks
|
Masquerade Account Name |
|
blocks
|
Network Sniffing |
|
blocks
|
Windows Management Instrumentation |
|
blocks
|
Scheduled Task/Job |
|
blocks
|
At |
|
blocks
|
Cron |
|
blocks
|
Scheduled Task |
|
blocks
|
Systemd Timers |
|
blocks
|
Container Orchestration Job |
|
blocks
|
Process Injection |
|
blocks
|
Ptrace System Calls |
|
blocks
|
Web Portal Capture |
|
blocks
|
Command and Scripting Interpreter |
|
blocks
|
PowerShell |
|
blocks
|
Network Device CLI |
|
blocks
|
Cloud API |
|
blocks
|
Software Deployment Tools |
|
blocks
|
Valid Accounts |
|
blocks
|
Domain Accounts |
|
blocks
|
Local Accounts |
|
blocks
|
Cloud Accounts |
|
blocks
|
Cloud Account |
|
blocks
|
Account Manipulation |
|
blocks
|
Additional Cloud Credentials |
|
blocks
|
Additional Email Delegate Permissions |
|
blocks
|
Additional Cloud Roles |
|
blocks
|
SSH Authorized Keys |
|
blocks
|
Additional Local or Domain Groups |
|
blocks
|
Brute Force |
|
blocks
|
Password Guessing |
|
blocks
|
Password Cracking |
|
blocks
|
Password Spraying |
|
blocks
|
Credential Stuffing |
|
blocks
|
Multi-Factor Authentication Interception |
|
blocks
|
Email Collection |
|
blocks
|
Remote Email Collection |
|
blocks
|
External Remote Services |
|
blocks
|
Access Token Manipulation |
|
blocks
|
Token Impersonation/Theft |
|
blocks
|
Create Process with Token |
|
blocks
|
Make and Impersonate Token |
|
blocks
|
Create Account |
|
blocks
|
Local Account |
|
blocks
|
Domain Account |
|
blocks
|
Cloud Account |
|
blocks
|
Browser Session Hijacking |
|
blocks
|
Exploit Public-Facing Application |
|
blocks
|
BITS Jobs |
|
blocks
|
Exploitation of Remote Services |
|
blocks
|
Exploitation for Credential Access |
|
blocks
|
Data from Information Repositories |
|
blocks
|
Confluence |
|
blocks
|
Sharepoint |
|
blocks
|
Code Repositories |
|
blocks
|
Customer Relationship Management Software |
|
blocks
|
Messaging Applications |
|
blocks
|
System Binary Proxy Execution |
|
blocks
|
Msiexec |
|
blocks
|
File and Directory Permissions Modification |
|
blocks
|
Windows Permissions |
|
blocks
|
Linux and Mac Permissions |
|
blocks
|
Domain or Tenant Policy Modification |
|
blocks
|
Service Stop |
|
blocks
|
Firmware Corruption |
|
blocks
|
Server Software Component |
|
blocks
|
Transport Agent |
|
blocks
|
IIS Components |
|
blocks
|
Implant Internal Image |
|
blocks
|
Steal Application Access Token |
|
blocks
|
Data from Cloud Storage |
|
blocks
|
Transfer Data to Cloud Account |
|
blocks
|
Cloud Service Dashboard |
|
blocks
|
Steal Web Session Cookie |
|
blocks
|
Pre-OS Boot |
|
blocks
|
System Firmware |
|
blocks
|
Bootkit |
|
blocks
|
TFTP Boot |
|
blocks
|
Create or Modify System Process |
|
blocks
|
Launch Agent |
|
blocks
|
Systemd Service |
|
blocks
|
Windows Service |
|
blocks
|
Launch Daemon |
|
blocks
|
Container Service |
|
blocks
|
Windows Management Instrumentation Event Subscription |
|
blocks
|
Winlogon Helper DLL |
|
blocks
|
Kernel Modules and Extensions |
|
blocks
|
Shortcut Modification |
|
blocks
|
Print Processors |
|
blocks
|
XDG Autostart Entries |
|
blocks
|
Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism |
|
blocks
|
Bypass User Account Control |
|
blocks
|
Sudo and Sudo Caching |
|
blocks
|
Use Alternate Authentication Material |
|
blocks
|
Application Access Token |
|
blocks
|
Pass the Hash |
|
blocks
|
Pass the Ticket |
|
blocks
|
Unsecured Credentials |
|
blocks
|
Credentials In Files |
|
blocks
|
Credentials in Registry |
|
blocks
|
Private Keys |
|
blocks
|
Group Policy Preferences |
|
blocks
|
Container API |
|
blocks
|
Password Managers |
|
blocks
|
Modify Authentication Process |
|
blocks
|
Domain Controller Authentication |
|
blocks
|
Pluggable Authentication Modules |
|
blocks
|
Network Device Authentication |
|
blocks
|
Multi-Factor Authentication |
|
blocks
|
Hybrid Identity |
|
blocks
|
Conditional Access Policies |
|
blocks
|
Steal or Forge Kerberos Tickets |
|
blocks
|
Golden Ticket |
|
blocks
|
Silver Ticket |
|
blocks
|
Kerberoasting |
|
blocks
|
AS-REP Roasting |
|
blocks
|
Ccache Files |
|
blocks
|
Inter-Process Communication |
|
blocks
|
Component Object Model |
|
blocks
|
Remote Service Session Hijacking |
|
blocks
|
SSH Hijacking |
|
blocks
|
RDP Hijacking |
|
blocks
|
System Services |
|
blocks
|
Launchctl |
|
blocks
|
Service Execution |
|
blocks
|
Hijack Execution Flow |
|
blocks
|
Executable Installer File Permissions Weakness |
|
blocks
|
Services File Permissions Weakness |
|
blocks
|
COR_PROFILER |
|
blocks
|
Modify Cloud Compute Infrastructure |
|
blocks
|
Create Snapshot |
|
blocks
|
Create Cloud Instance |
|
blocks
|
Delete Cloud Instance |
|
blocks
|
Cloud Infrastructure Discovery |
|
blocks
|
Network Boundary Bridging |
|
blocks
|
Network Address Translation Traversal |
|
blocks
|
Modify System Image |
|
blocks
|
Patch System Image |
|
blocks
|
Downgrade System Image |
|
blocks
|
Deploy Container |
|
blocks
|
Escape to Host |
|
blocks
|
Container and Resource Discovery |
|
blocks
|
Cloud Storage Object Discovery |
|
blocks
|
Multi-Factor Authentication Request Generation |
|
blocks
|
Serverless Execution |
|
blocks
|
Steal or Forge Authentication Certificates |
|
blocks
|
Cloud Administration Command |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Accountability / Attribution |
|
blocks
|
Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Privilege Elevation |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Access |
|
blocks
|
Identity Compromise / Impersonation |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Intellectual Property / Trade Secret Loss |
|
blocks
|
Fraud / Theft / Direct Financial Loss |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability |
|
blocks
|
Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data / Service Availability |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authenticity / Provenance |
|
blocks
|
Privacy Harm / Unauthorized Processing |
|
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
|
Physical Crime |
|
blocks
|
Utility Service Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
blocks
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Infrastructure Failure / Degradation |
|
blocks
|
Cryptographic Compromise / Cryptanalytic Capability Advancement |
|
blocks
|
IAM-06.03B |
|
blocks
|
IAM-07.03AC |
|
blocks
|
IAM-08.01B |
|
blocks
|
IAM-08.07B |
|
is blocked by
|
IAC-32 Identification & Authentication for Organizational Users – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
IA-02 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) |
|
blocks
|
IA-02 [L] Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) |
|
blocks
|
IA-02 [M] Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) |
|
blocks
|
IA-02 [H] Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) |
|
blocks
|
03.05.01 User Identification and Authentication |
|
blocks
|
03.05.05 Identifier Management |
|
blocks
|
PR.AA-01 Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed by the organization |
|
blocks
|
PR.AA-03 Users, services, and hardware are authenticated |
|
blocks
|
PR.AA-05 Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined in a policy, managed, enforced, and reviewed, and incorporate the principles of … |
- 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.
|