+Incident Stakeholder Reporting
---+Situational Awareness For Incidents
---+Cyber Incident Reporting for Sensitive / Regulated Data
---+Serious Incident Reporting
---+Vulnerabilities Related To Incidents
|
Incident Stakeholder Reporting
Description
Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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. Übersicht
| Bezeichnung |
Standard |
|
Situational Awareness For Incidents
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to document, monitor and report the status of cybersecurity and data protection incidents to internal stakeholders all the way through the resolution of the incident.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 document, monitor and report the status of cybersecurity and data protection incidents to internal stakeholders all the way through the resolution of the incident.
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.
|
|
Cyber Incident Reporting for Sensitive / Regulated Data
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to report sensitive and/or regulated data incidents in a timely manner.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)
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
Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 report sensitive/regulated data incidents in a timely manner.
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.
|
|
Serious Incident Reporting
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) to relevant authorities in the locality where the incident occurred, in accordance with mandatory reporting:
(1) Requirements; and
(2) Timelines.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 report any serious incident involving the organization's TAASD to relevant authorities in the locality where the incident occurred, in accordance with mandatory reporting:
(1) Requirements; and
(2) Timelines.
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.
|
|
Vulnerabilities Related To Incidents
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to report system vulnerabilities associated with reported cybersecurity and data protection incidents to organization-defined personnel or roles.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 report system vulnerabilities associated with reported cybersecurity and data protection incidents to organization-defined personnel or roles.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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 23 Berichtspflichten
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 17 Qualitätsmanagementsystem
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 39 Komponenten des IKT-Geschäftsfortführungsplans
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 14 Kommunikation
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 19 Meldung schwerwiegender IKT-bezogener Vorfälle und freiwillige Meldung erheblicher Cyberbedrohungen
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 45 Vereinbarungen über den Austausch von Informationen und Erkenntnissen zu Cyberbedrohungen
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 34 Benachrichtigung der von einer Verletzung des Schutzes personenbezogener Daten betroffenen Person
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 14 Meldepflichten der Hersteller
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 15 Freiwillige Meldungen
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 14 Kommunikation
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 19 Meldung schwerwiegender IKT-bezogener Vorfälle und freiwillige Meldung erheblicher Cyberbedrohungen
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 45 Vereinbarungen über den Austausch von Informationen und Erkenntnissen zu Cyberbedrohungen
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 34 Benachrichtigung der von einer Verletzung des Schutzes personenbezogener Daten betroffenen Person
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 14 Meldepflichten der Hersteller
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 15 Freiwillige Meldungen
-
|
|
DELAW
|
BDSG § 66 Benachrichtigung betroffener Personen bei Verletzungen des Schutzes personenbezogener Daten
(1) Hat eine Verletzung des Schutzes personenbezogener Daten voraussichtlich eine erhebliche Gefahr für Rechtsgüter betroffener Personen zur Folge, so hat der Verantwortliche die betroffenen Personen unverzüglich über den Vorfall zu benachrichtigen. (2) Die Benachrichtigung nach Absatz 1 hat in klarer und einfacher Sprache die Art der Verletzung des Schutzes personenbezogener Daten zu beschreiben und zumindest die in § 65 Absatz 3 Nummer 2 bis 4 genannten Informationen und Maßnahmen zu enthalten. (3) Von der Benachrichtigung nach Absatz 1 kann abgesehen werden, wenn - 1.
der Verantwortliche geeignete technische und organisatorische Sicherheitsvorkehrungen getroffen hat und diese Vorkehrungen auf die von der Verletzung des Schutzes personenbezogener Daten betroffenen Daten angewandt wurden; dies gilt insbesondere für Vorkehrungen wie Verschlüsselungen, durch die die Daten für unbefugte Personen unzugänglich gemacht wurden; - 2.
der Verantwortliche durch im Anschluss an die Verletzung getroffene Maßnahmen sichergestellt hat, dass aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach keine erhebliche Gefahr im Sinne des Absatzes 1 mehr besteht, oder - 3.
dies mit einem unverhältnismäßigen Aufwand verbunden wäre; in diesem Fall hat stattdessen eine öffentliche Bekanntmachung oder eine ähnliche Maßnahme zu erfolgen, durch die die betroffenen Personen vergleichbar wirksam informiert werden.
(4) Wenn der Verantwortliche die betroffenen Personen über eine Verletzung des Schutzes personenbezogener Daten nicht benachrichtigt hat, kann die oder der Bundesbeauftragte förmlich feststellen, dass ihrer oder seiner Auffassung nach die in Absatz 3 genannten Voraussetzungen nicht erfüllt sind. Hierbei hat sie oder er die Wahrscheinlichkeit zu berücksichtigen, dass die Verletzung eine erhebliche Gefahr im Sinne des Absatzes 1 zur Folge hat. (5) Die Benachrichtigung der betroffenen Personen nach Absatz 1 kann unter den in § 56 Absatz 2 genannten Voraussetzungen aufgeschoben, eingeschränkt oder unterlassen werden, soweit nicht die Interessen der betroffenen Person aufgrund der von der Verletzung ausgehenden erheblichen Gefahr im Sinne des Absatzes 1 überwiegen. (6) § 42 Absatz 4 findet entsprechende Anwendung.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 14 (1)
Als Teil des IKT-Risikomanagementrahmens gemäß Artikel 6 Absatz 1 verfügen Finanzunternehmen über Kommunikationspläne, die je nach Sachlage eine verantwortungsbewusste Offenlegung zumindest von schwerwiegenden IKT-bezogenen Vorfällen oder Schwachstellen gegenüber Kunden und anderen Finanzunternehmen sowie der Öffentlichkeit ermöglichen.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 14 (2)
Als Teil des IKT-Risikomanagementrahmens setzen Finanzunternehmen Kommunikationsstrategien für interne Mitarbeiter und externe Interessenträger um. Bei Kommunikationsleitlinien für Mitarbeiter wird berücksichtigt, dass zwischen dem Personal, das am IKT-Risikomanagement, insbesondere im Bereich Reaktion und Wiederherstellung, beteiligt ist, und dem zu informierendem Personal unterschieden werden muss.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 14 (3)
Mindestens eine Person im Finanzunternehmen ist mit der Umsetzung der Kommunikationsstrategie für IKT-bezogene Vorfälle beauftragt und nimmt zu diesem Zweck die entsprechende Aufgabe gegenüber der Öffentlichkeit und den Medien wahr.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 19 (1)
Finanzunternehmen melden der nach Artikel 46 jeweils zuständigen Behörde gemäß Absatz 4 schwerwiegende IKT-bezogene Vorfälle. Unterliegt ein Finanzunternehmen der Aufsicht mehr als einer nach Artikel 46 zuständigen nationalen Behörde, so benennen die Mitgliedstaaten eine einzige zuständige Behörde als einschlägige zuständige Behörde, die für die Wahrnehmung der im vorliegenden Artikel aufgeführten Funktionen und Aufgaben verantwortlich ist. Kreditinstitute, die gemäß Artikel 6 Absatz 4 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1024/2013 als bedeutend eingestuft wurden, melden schwerwiegende IKT-bezogene Vorfälle der gemäß Artikel 4 der Richtlinie 2013/36/EU benannten jeweils zuständigen nationalen Behörde, die diese Meldung unverzüglich an die EZB weiterleitet. Für die Zwecke von Unterabsatz 1 erstellen Finanzunternehmen nach Erfassung und Analyse aller relevanten Informationen unter Verwendung der in Artikel 20 genannten Vorlage die Erstmeldung und die Meldungen nach Absatz 4 und übermitteln diese der zuständigen Behörde. Falls es aus technischen Gründen nicht möglich ist, die Erstmeldung unter Verwendung der Vorlage zu übermitteln, teilen die Finanzunternehmen dies der zuständigen Behörde auf anderem Wege mit. Die Erstmeldung und die Meldungen nach Absatz 4 enthalten alle Informationen, die die zuständige Behörde benötigt, um die Signifikanz des schwerwiegenden IKT-bezogenen Vorfalls zu ermitteln und mögliche grenzüberschreitende Auswirkungen zu bewerten. Unbeschadet der Meldung gemäß Unterabsatz 1 durch das Finanzunternehmen an die jeweils zuständige Behörde können die Mitgliedstaaten zusätzlich festlegen, dass einige oder alle Finanzunternehmen die Erstmeldung und jede Meldung nach Absatz 4 auch den gemäß der Richtlinie (EU) 2022/2555 benannten oder eingerichteten zuständigen Behörden oder Computer-Notfallteams (computer security incident response teams — CSIRT) unter Verwendung der in Artikel 20 genannten Vorlage zur Verfügung stellen müssen.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 19 (2)
Finanzunternehmen können der jeweils zuständigen Behörde auf freiwilliger Basis erhebliche Cyberbedrohungen melden, wenn sie der Auffassung sind, dass die Bedrohung für das Finanzsystem, die Dienstnutzer oder die Kunden relevant ist. Die jeweils zuständige Behörde kann derartige Informationen anderen in Absatz 6 genannten einschlägigen Behörden zur Verfügung stellen. Kreditinstitute, die gemäß Artikel 6 Absatz 4 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1024/2013 als bedeutend eingestuft wurden, können erhebliche Cyberbedrohungen auf freiwilliger Basis der gemäß Artikel 4 der Richtlinie 2013/36/EU benannten jeweils zuständigen nationalen Behörde melden, die diese Meldung unverzüglich an die EZB weiterleitet. Die Mitgliedstaaten können festlegen, dass die Finanzunternehmen, die auf freiwilliger Basis eine Meldung gemäß Unterabsatz 1 vornehmen, diese Meldung auch an die gemäß der Richtlinie (EU) 2022/2555 benannten oder eingerichteten CSIRT erstatten können.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 19 (3)
Wenn ein schwerwiegender IKT-bezogener Vorfall auftritt und Auswirkungen auf die finanziellen Interessen von Kunden hat, unterrichten die Finanzunternehmen, sobald sie hiervon Kenntnis erlangt haben, ihre Kunden unverzüglich über den schwerwiegenden IKT-bezogenen Vorfall und die Maßnahmen, die ergriffen wurden, um die nachteiligen Auswirkungen eines solchen Vorfalls zu mindern. Im Falle einer erheblichen Cyberbedrohung unterrichten die Finanzunternehmen gegebenenfalls ihre potenziell betroffenen Kunden über angemessene Schutzmaßnahmen, die diese ergreifen könnten.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 19 (4)
Finanzunternehmen legen innerhalb der in Artikel 20 Absatz 1 Buchstabe a Ziffer ii festzulegenden Fristen der jeweils zuständigen Behörde Folgendes vor:
b)
nach der Erstmeldung gemäß Buchstabe a eine Zwischenmeldung, sobald sich der Status des ursprünglichen Vorfalls erheblich geändert hat oder sich die Handhabung des schwerwiegenden IKT-bezogenen Vorfalls auf der Grundlage neuer verfügbarer Informationen geändert hat, gegebenenfalls gefolgt von aktualisierten Meldungen, wann immer eine entsprechende Statusaktualisierung vorliegt, sowie auf ausdrücklichen Antrag der zuständigen Behörde;
c)
eine Abschlussmeldung, wenn die Ursachenanalyse abgeschlossen ist — unabhängig davon, ob bereits Minderungsmaßnahmen getroffen wurden oder nicht — und sich die tatsächlichen Auswirkungen beziffern lassen und Schätzungen ersetzen.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 19 (5)
Finanzunternehmen dürfen im Einklang mit den sektorspezifischen Rechtsvorschriften der Union und der Mitgliedstaaten die Meldepflichten nach diesem Artikel an einen Drittdienstleister auslagern. Bei einer solchen Auslagerung bleibt das Finanzunternehmen in vollem Umfang für die Erfüllung der Anforderungen für die Meldung von Vorfällen verantwortlich.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 45 (3)
Finanzunternehmen teilen zuständigen Behörden ihre Einbindung in die in Absatz 1 genannten Vereinbarungen über den Austausch von Informationen mit, sobald ihre Mitwirkung bestätigt wurde bzw. endet und diese Beendigung in Kraft ist.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 96 Meldung von Vorfällen
-
|
Verknüpfte Vorgänge
- 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.
|