+Vulnerability Remediation Process
---+Centralized Management of Flaw Remediation Processes
---+Continuous Vulnerability Remediation Activities
---+Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Mitigations
|
Vulnerability Remediation Process
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure that vulnerabilities are properly identified, tracked and remediated.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Patch software when updates are released
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Vulnerability remediation policy
∙ Prioritized patching schedule
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal vulnerability remediation process
∙ Risk-based prioritization
∙ Remediation SLAs
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise vulnerability remediation program
∙ Defined SLAs by severity
∙ Tracking and reporting
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise vulnerability management platform (e.g., Tenable.io, Qualys)
∙ Automated remediation tracking
∙ SIEM integration
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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning solution).
▪ 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 VPM 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 ensure that vulnerabilities are properly identified, tracked and remediated.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
1. Επισκόπηση
| Τίτλος |
Πρότυπο |
|
Centralized Management of Flaw Remediation Processes
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to centrally-manage the flaw remediation process.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Centrally track vulnerability status across all systems
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Centralized vulnerability tracking spreadsheet or tool
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Centralized vulnerability management platform (e.g., Tenable.io, Qualys)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise centralized vulnerability management platform with integrated asset management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise vulnerability management platform (e.g., Tenable One, Qualys VMDR)
∙ Full asset-vulnerability integration
∙ Automated centralized management
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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning solution).
▪ 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 VPM 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 centrally-manage the flaw remediation process.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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.
|
|
Continuous Vulnerability Remediation Activities
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to address new threats and vulnerabilities on an ongoing basis and ensure assets are protected against known attacks.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Continuously monitor for new vulnerabilities in used software
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Continuous vulnerability scanning and remediation cycle
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal continuous vulnerability management program
∙ Regular scan cadence
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise continuous vulnerability management (e.g., Tenable.io, Qualys)
∙ Automated remediation workflows
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise continuous vulnerability management platform
∙ Real-time scanning
∙ Automated patching integration
∙ SIEM/SOAR integration
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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning solution).
▪ 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 VPM 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 address new threats and vulnerabilities on an ongoing basis and ensure assets are protected against known attacks.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
|
|
Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Mitigations
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to prioritize remediation and mitigation of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) by:
(1) Reducing or removing public exposure to exploitation; and
(2) Expediting patch deployment actions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Subscribe to CISA KEV catalog alerts (https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog)
∙ Prioritize patching KEV-listed vulnerabilities within CISA timeframes
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ CISA KEV catalog subscription and monitoring
∙ Priority patching for KEV-listed vulnerabilities within CISA-defined windows
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ KEV-integrated vulnerability management program
∙ CISA KEV catalog integration with vulnerability scanner
∙ Accelerated remediation SLAs for KEV items
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise vulnerability management with KEV prioritization
∙ Automated KEV alerting and remediation tracking
∙ Defined KEV remediation SLAs
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise KEV management program
∙ Automated CISA KEV catalog integration
∙ Real-time KEV exposure tracking and alerting
∙ Risk-based KEV remediation with board-level visibility for material exposures
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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-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 apply software patches through an informal process.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability 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 define the breadth and depth of coverage for vulnerability scanning that covers system components scanned and types of vulnerabilities that are checked for.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel maintain a structured process to apply software patches and other vulnerability remediation efforts.
Level 3 Well Defined
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning solution).
▪ 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 VPM 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 prioritize remediation and mitigation of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) by:
(1) Reducing or removing public exposure to exploitation; and
(2) Expediting patch deployment actions.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
|
1.1 Παραπομπές
1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
1.3 Σχετικοί κανονισμοί
2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
3. Σχετικοί κανονισμοί
Κανονισμοί
| Πηγή |
Κανονισμός |
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 25 1
1. Το πρόγραμμα δοκιμών ψηφιακής επιχειρησιακής ανθεκτικότητας που αναφέρεται στο άρθρο 24 προβλέπει, σύμφωνα με τα κριτήρια του άρθρου 4 παράγραφος 2, τη διενέργεια κατάλληλων δοκιμών, όπως αξιολογήσεις και έλεγχοι ευπαθειών, αναλύσεις ανοικτού κώδικα, αξιολογήσεις ασφάλειας δικτύου, αναλύσεις ελλείψεων, επισκοπήσεις υλικής ασφάλειας, ερωτηματολόγια και λύσεις λογισμικού σάρωσης, επανεξετάσεις πηγαίου κώδικα εφόσον είναι εφικτό, δοκιμές βάσει σεναρίων, δοκιμές συμβατότητας, δοκιμές επιδόσεων, διατερματικές δοκιμές και δοκιμές παρείσδυσης.
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 25 2
2. Τα κεντρικά αποθετήρια τίτλων και οι κεντρικοί αντισυμβαλλόμενοι διενεργούν αξιολογήσεις ευπαθειών πριν από την υλοποίηση ή αναδιάταξη νέων ή υφιστάμενων εφαρμογών και στοιχείων υποδομής και υπηρεσιών ΤΠΕ που υποστηρίζουν τις κρίσιμες ή σημαντικές λειτουργίες της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητα.
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 25 3
3. Οι πολύ μικρές επιχειρήσεις διενεργούν τις δοκιμές που αναφέρονται στην παράγραφο 1 συνδυάζοντας μια προσέγγιση βάσει κινδύνου με στρατηγικό σχεδιασμό των δοκιμών ΤΠΕ, λαμβάνοντας δεόντως υπόψη την ανάγκη διατήρησης ισορροπημένης προσέγγισης μεταξύ της κλίμακας των πόρων και του χρόνου που πρέπει να διατεθεί στις δοκιμές ΤΠΕ σύμφωνα με το παρόν άρθρο, αφενός, και του επείγοντος χαρακτήρα, του είδους του κινδύνου, της κρισιμότητας των πληροφοριακών πόρων και των παρεχόμενων υπηρεσιών, καθώς και κάθε άλλο σχετικό παράγοντα, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της ικανότητας της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας να αναλαμβάνει υπολογιζόμενους κινδύνους, αφετέρου.
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 10 Ευπάθεια και διαχείριση ενημερώσεων κώδικα
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 10 Ευπάθεια και διαχείριση ενημερώσεων κώδικα
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 10 Ευπάθεια και διαχείριση ενημερώσεων κώδικα
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 34 Ασφάλεια λειτουργιών ΤΠΕ
Άρθρο 34
Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες που αναφέρονται στο άρθρο 16 παράγραφος 1 του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) 2022/2554, στο πλαίσιο των συστημάτων, των πρωτοκόλλων και των εργαλείων τους, και για όλους τους πόρους ΤΠΕ:
α)
παρακολουθούν και διαχειρίζονται τον κύκλο ζωής όλων των πόρων ΤΠΕ·
β)
παρακολουθούν αν οι πόροι ΤΠΕ υποστηρίζονται από τρίτους παρόχους υπηρεσιών ΤΠΕ στις χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες, κατά περίπτωση·
γ)
προσδιορίζουν τις απαιτήσεις χωρητικότητας των οικείων πόρων ΤΠΕ και μέτρα για τη διατήρηση και τη βελτίωση της διαθεσιμότητας και της αποτελεσματικότητας των συστημάτων ΤΠΕ και την πρόληψη ελλείψεων χωρητικότητας ΤΠΕ πριν από την υλοποίησή τους·
δ)
διενεργούν αυτοματοποιημένη σάρωση και αυτοματοποιημένες αξιολογήσεις ευπαθειών των πόρων ΤΠΕ ανάλογα με την ταξινόμησή τους, όπως αναφέρεται στο άρθρο 30 παράγραφος 1, και με το συνολικό προφίλ κινδύνου του πόρου ΤΠΕ, και αναπτύσσουν ενημερώσεις κώδικα για την αντιμετώπιση των εντοπιζόμενων ευπαθειών·
ε)
διαχειρίζονται τους κινδύνους που σχετίζονται με ανεπίκαιρους, μη υποστηριζόμενους ή παρωχημένους πόρους ΤΠΕ·
στ)
καταγράφουν τα συμβάντα που σχετίζονται με τον έλεγχο λογικής και φυσικής πρόσβασης, τις λειτουργίες ΤΠΕ, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των δραστηριοτήτων κίνησης συστημάτων και δικτύων, και τη διαχείριση αλλαγών ΤΠΕ·
ζ)
προσδιορίζουν και εφαρμόζουν μέτρα για την παρακολούθηση και την ανάλυση πληροφοριών σχετικά με ασυνήθιστες δραστηριότητες και συμπεριφορά για κρίσιμες ή σημαντικές λειτουργίες ΤΠΕ·
η)
εφαρμόζουν μέτρα για την παρακολούθηση συναφών και επικαιροποιημένων πληροφοριών σχετικά με τις κυβερνοαπειλές·
θ)
εφαρμόζουν μέτρα για τον εντοπισμό πιθανών διαρροών πληροφοριών, κακόβουλων κωδικών και άλλων απειλών για την ασφάλεια, καθώς και δημοσίως γνωστών ευπαθειών του λογισμικού και του υλισμικού, και ελέγχουν αν υπάρχουν αντίστοιχες νέες ενημερώσεις ασφαλείας.
Για τους σκοπούς του στοιχείου στ), οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες ευθυγραμμίζουν τον βαθμό λεπτομέρειας των αρχείων καταγραφής με τον σκοπό τους και τη χρήση του πόρου ΤΠΕ που παράγει τα εν λόγω αρχεία καταγραφής.
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 21 Μέτρα διαχείρισης κινδύνων στον τομέα της κυβερνοασφάλειας
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 13 Υποχρεώσεις των κατασκευαστών
|
Συνδεδεμένα ζητήματα
- Secure Controls Framework -
EN: GRCA includes the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) content, © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, used under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. SCF control numbers, names, descriptions and mappings appear exactly as published by the SCF Council – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA may group or reorder SCF content for display, which does not change SCF content; the mappings are shown as links to the frameworks they name. Learn more at https://securecontrolsframework.com.
DE: GRCA enthält Inhalte des Secure Controls Framework® (SCF), © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, genutzt unter der Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. Nummern, Namen, Beschreibungen und Zuordnungen der SCF-Controls erscheinen genau so, wie der SCF Council sie veröffentlicht – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA gruppiert oder sortiert SCF-Inhalte für die Anzeige, ohne sie zu verändern; die Zuordnungen erscheinen als Verknüpfungen zu den genannten Regelwerken. Mehr unter https://securecontrolsframework.com.
|