+Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks

Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks

Description

Cryptographic mechanisms exist to implement strong cryptography and security protocols to safeguard sensitive and/or regulated data during transmission over open, public networks.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Use HTTPS/TLS for all internet-facing communications

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

∙ TLS for all internet traffic
∙ No unencrypted protocols over public networks

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

∙ Encryption-in-transit standards
∙ TLS 1.2+ enforcement
∙ Certificate management

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

∙ Enterprise encryption-in-transit program
∙ TLS 1.3 enforcement
∙ Certificate lifecycle management

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

∙ Enterprise encryption governance program
∙ TLS 1.3+
∙ Certificate management platform (e.g., Venafi)
∙ Automated certificate monitoring

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

Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data are protected using a cryptographic mechanism to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN).
▪ Wireless access is protected via secure authentication and encryption.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Network security 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 personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD.
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data use a cryptographic mechanism to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN).

Level 3 Well Defined

Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator).
▪ 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 NET 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).
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
▪ An implemented and operational cryptographic capability exists to implement strong cryptography and security protocols to safeguard sensitive/regulated data during transmission over open, public networks.

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

1.1 Referenzen

1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen

1.3 Zugehörige Regulierungen

2. Identifizierte Anforderungen

Anforderungen

3. Zugehörige Regulierungen

Regulierungen
EULAW Artikel 13 Management der Netzwerksicherheit

Artikel 13

Management der Netzwerksicherheit

Die Finanzunternehmen entwickeln, dokumentieren und implementieren im Rahmen der Schutzvorkehrungen, die die Sicherheit der Netzwerke gegen Eindringen und Missbrauch von Daten gewährleisten, Richtlinien, Verfahren, Protokolle und Tools für das Management der Netzwerksicherheit, in denen alle folgenden Aspekte behandelt werden:

a) 

die Trennung und Segmentierung von IKT-Systemen und -Netzwerken unter Berücksichtigung

i) 

der Kritikalität oder Bedeutung der Funktion, die von diesen IKT-Systemen und -Netzwerken unterstützt wird,

ii) 

der im Einklang mit Artikel 8 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EU) 2022/2554 festgelegten Klassifizierung,

iii) 

des Gesamtrisikoprofils der IKT-Assets, die diese IKT-Systeme und -Netzwerke nutzen;

b) 

die Dokumentation aller Netzwerkverbindungen und Datenflüsse des Finanzunternehmens;

c) 

die Nutzung eines gesonderten und speziellen Netzwerks für die Verwaltung von IKT-Assets;

d) 

die Ermittlung und Implementierung von Kontrollen für den Netzwerkzugang, um Verbindungen zum Netzwerk des Finanzunternehmens durch ein nicht zugelassenes Gerät oder System oder einen Endpunkt, der die Sicherheitsanforderungen des Finanzunternehmens nicht erfüllt, zu verhindern und zu erkennen;

e) 

die Verschlüsselung von Netzwerkverbindungen über Unternehmensnetzwerke, öffentliche Netzwerke, inländische Netzwerke, Netzwerke Dritter und drahtlose Netzwerke für die verwendeten Kommunikationsprotokolle unter Berücksichtigung der Ergebnisse der genehmigten Datenklassifizierung, der Ergebnisse der IKT-Risikobewertung und der Verschlüsselung von Netzwerkverbindungen gemäß Artikel 6 Absatz 2;

f) 

die Konzeption der Netzwerke im Einklang mit den vom Finanzunternehmen festgelegten IKT-Sicherheitsanforderungen unter Berücksichtigung führender Praktiken zur Gewährleistung der Vertraulichkeit, Integrität und Verfügbarkeit des Netzwerks;

g) 

die Sicherung des Netzwerkverkehrs zwischen den internen Netzwerken und dem Internet und anderen externen Verbindungen;

h) 

die Ermittlung der Aufgaben und Verantwortlichkeiten sowie der Etappen für die Spezifikation, Implementierung, Genehmigung, Änderung und Überprüfung der Firewall-Regeln und Verbindungsfilter;

i) 

die Überprüfung der Netzwerkarchitektur und des Konzepts für die Netzwerksicherheit einmal jährlich und für Kleinstunternehmen in regelmäßigen Abständen, um potenzielle Schwachstellen zu ermitteln;

j) 

die Maßnahmen zur vorübergehenden Isolierung von Teilnetzwerken sowie von Netzwerkkomponenten und -geräten, soweit erforderlich;

k) 

die Implementierung einer sicheren Konfigurationsbasis für alle Netzwerkkomponenten und die Absicherung des Netzwerks und der Netzwerkgeräte im Einklang mit etwaigen Anweisungen des Anbieters und gegebenenfalls mit Normen im Sinne des Artikels 2 Nummer 1 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1025/2012 sowie führenden Praktiken;

l) 

die Verfahren zur Begrenzung, Sperrung und Beendigung von System- und Fernsitzungen nach einer bestimmten Inaktivitätszeit;

m) 

für Vereinbarungen über Netzwerkdienstleistungen:

i) 

die Ermittlung und Spezifikation von IKT- und Informationssicherheitsmaßnahmen, der Dienstleistungsgüte und von Managementanforderungen für alle Netzwerkdienste;

ii) 

die Feststellung, ob diese Dienstleistungen von einem gruppeninternen IKT-Dienstleister oder von IKT-Drittdienstleistern erbracht werden.

Für die Zwecke von Buchstabe h überprüfen die Finanzunternehmen regelmäßig die Firewall-Regeln und die Verbindungsfilter im Einklang mit der gemäß Artikel 8 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EU) 2022/2554 festgelegten Klassifizierung und dem Gesamtrisikoprofil der beteiligten IKT-Systeme. Bei IKT-Systemen, die kritische oder wichtige Funktionen unterstützen, überprüfen Finanzunternehmen mindestens alle sechs Monate, ob die bestehenden Firewall-Regeln und Verbindungsfilter angemessen sind.
EULAW Artikel 14 Sicherung von Informationen bei der Übermittlung
-

Verknüpfte Vorgänge

Verknüpfungen
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 08
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 Unauthorized Access
blocks Identity Compromise / Impersonation
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Intellectual Property / Trade Secret Loss
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Long-Term Confidentiality Loss from Cryptographic Obsolescence
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
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 Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Product Defect / Design Failure
blocks Harvest Now / Decrypt Later (HNDL)
blocks Cryptographic Compromise / Cryptanalytic Capability Advancement
blocks CRY-01.01B
blocks COS-08.01B
blocks COS-08.02B
blocks SSO-07.01B
blocks SSO-07.01AS
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Identity Compromise / Impersonation
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Intellectual Property / Trade Secret Loss
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Long-Term Confidentiality Loss from Cryptographic Obsolescence
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
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 Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Product Defect / Design Failure
blocks Harvest Now / Decrypt Later (HNDL)
blocks Cryptographic Compromise / Cryptanalytic Capability Advancement
blocks CRY-01.01B
blocks COS-08.01B
blocks COS-08.02B
blocks SSO-07.01B
blocks SSO-07.01AS
is blocked by NET-37 Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks – Assessment Procedure
blocks AC-02 Account Management
blocks AC-03 Access Enforcement
blocks AC-05 Separation of Duties
blocks SI-03 Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-04 System Monitoring
blocks SI-05 Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives
blocks SI-07 Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity
blocks SI-10 Information Input Validation
blocks AC-02 [L] Account Management
blocks AC-03 [L] Access Enforcement
blocks SI-03 [L] Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-04 [L] System Monitoring
blocks SI-05 [L] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives
blocks AC-02 [M] Account Management
blocks AC-03 [M] Access Enforcement
blocks AC-05 [M] Separation of Duties
blocks SI-03 [M] Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-04 [M] System Monitoring
blocks SI-05 [M] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives
blocks SI-07 [M] Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity
blocks SI-10 [M] Information Input Validation
blocks AC-02 [H] Account Management
blocks AC-03 [H] Access Enforcement
blocks AC-05 [H] Separation of Duties
blocks SI-03 [H] Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-04 [H] System Monitoring
blocks SI-05 [H] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives
blocks SI-07 [H] Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity
blocks SI-10 [H] Information Input Validation
  • 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.