|
+Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Supply Chain Visibility |
Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Supply Chain VisibilityDescriptionMechanisms exist to require vendors to disclose Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) support roadmaps that include:(1) Identification of PQC-related limitations; and (2) Supported upgrade paths to ensure long-lived devices (e.g., OT, IoT and embedded systems) can support PQC capabilities. Possible Solutions & ConsiderationsMicro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2∙ Ask key vendors (cloud, VPN, email) about PQC support plans during renewalsSmall Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4∙ Request PQC support roadmaps from key technology vendors∙ Include PQC readiness in vendor RFPs Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6∙ Vendor PQC readiness assessments as part of TPRM∙ Contractual requirements for PQC roadmap disclosure ∙ Vendor questionnaires on quantum readiness Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8∙ Formal vendor PQC disclosure requirements∙ PQC readiness as part of third-party risk assessments ∙ Vendor roadmap tracking for critical suppliers Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9∙ Enterprise vendor PQC supply chain program∙ Automated vendor PQC tracking in TPRM platform ∙ Contractual PQC disclosure requirements for all critical vendors ∙ Regular supply chain quantum risk reporting SCR-CMMLevel 0 Not PerformedPractices 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 InformallySCR-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 TrackedSCR-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 DefinedQuantum Security (QTS) 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 QTS 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 QTS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain QTS domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool). ▪ 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 QTS 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 require vendors to disclose Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) support roadmaps that include: (1) Identification of PQC-related limitations; and (2) Supported upgrade paths to ensure long-lived devices (e.g., OT, IoT and embedded systems) can support PQC capabilities. Level 4 Quantitatively ControlledQuantum Security (QTS) 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 ImprovingUtilize 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 Referenzen1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen1.3 Zugehörige Regulierungen2. Identifizierte Anforderungen
3. Zugehörige Regulierungen
Verknüpfte Vorgänge
|