+Secure Disposal, Destruction or Re-Use of Equipment

Secure Disposal, Destruction or Re-Use of Equipment

Description

Mechanisms exist to securely dispose of, destroy or repurpose system components using organization-defined techniques and methods to prevent information being recovered from these components.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers

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

∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers

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

∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers

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

∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers

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

∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers

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

Asset Management (AST) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AST domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Asset management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Asset management is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Decentralized requirements for data / process owners to dispose of, destroy or repurpose systems when no longer needed for business or legal reasons.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards, procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
▪ IT personnel collect technology assets and media for destruction when it is no longer needed for business or legal reasons.
▪ IT personnel perform the destruction of technology assets and media in a secure manner or outsource the destruction to a third-party that specializes in technology assets and media destruction, as well as provides evidence of destruction (e.g., certificate of destruction).
▪ Asset decommissioning consists of mainly wiping hard drives.
▪ IT personnel use technology to re-image, or configure, assets from configuration-controlled and integrity-protected images or scripts (infrastructure as code).

Level 3 Well Defined

Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution, etc.).
▪ 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 AST 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 securely dispose of, destroy or repurpose system components using organization-defined techniques and methods to prevent information being recovered from these components.

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 Related Regulations

2. Identifizierte Anforderungen

Anforderungen

3. Related Regulations

Regulations

Linked Issues

Issuelinks
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Process
is related to Identify
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Inability to maintain individual accountability
blocks Improper assignment of privileged functions
blocks Unauthorized access
blocks Lost, damaged or stolen asset(s)
blocks Emergent properties and/or unintended consequences
blocks Business interruption
blocks Data loss / corruption
blocks Information loss / corruption or system compromise due to non‐technical attack
blocks Loss of revenue
blocks Cancelled contract
blocks Diminished competitive advantage
blocks Diminished reputation
blocks Fines and judgements
blocks System compromise
blocks Inability to support business processes
blocks Incorrect controls scoping
blocks Inadequate internal practices
blocks Inadequate third-party practices
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Inability to investigate / prosecute incidents
blocks Expense associated with managing a loss event
blocks Third-party cybersecurity exposure
blocks Third-party physical security exposure
blocks Third-party supply chain relationships, visibility and controls
blocks Third-party compliance / legal exposure
blocks Use of product / service
blocks Reliance on the third-party
  • 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.
Impressum Deutsch Englisch