|
+Stateful Hash-Based Signatures for Firmware & Code Signing |
Stateful Hash-Based Signatures for Firmware & Code SigningDescriptionMechanisms exist to enforce stateful hash-based signature schemes in accordance with NIST SP 800-208 and require state-management controls necessary to prevent one-time key reuse for:(1) Firmware signing; (2) Secure boot signing; and (3) Other long-lifetime code-signing use cases. Possible Solutions & ConsiderationsMicro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2∙ Use vendor-managed firmware signingSmall Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4∙ Use vendor-managed firmware signingMedium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6∙ Review code signing infrastructure for quantum vulnerability∙ Plan migration to hash-based signatures for critical firmware ∙ NIST SP 800-208 guidance (https://csrc.nist.gov) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8∙ Hash-based signature scheme deployment for firmware signing∙ NIST SP 800-208 compliance for firmware and code signing ∙ State-management controls to prevent key reuse Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9∙ Enterprise hash-based signature infrastructure for firmware and code signing∙ NIST SP 800-208 compliant implementation ∙ Automated state management to prevent one-time key reuse ∙ HSM-backed hash-based key management 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 InformallyQuantum Security (QTS) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:Level 2 Planned TrackedQuantum Security (QTS) 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 QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. 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 enforce stateful hash-based signature schemes in accordance with NIST SP 800-208 and require state-management controls necessary to prevent one-time key reuse for: (1) Firmware signing; (2) Secure boot signing; and (3) Other long-lifetime code-signing use cases. Level 4 Quantitatively ControlledUtilize 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 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
|