+Contingency Plan Root Cause Analysis (RCA) & Lessons Learned

Contingency Plan Root Cause Analysis (RCA) & Lessons Learned

Description

Mechanisms exist to conduct a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and "lessons learned" activity every time the contingency plan is activated.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

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

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

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

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

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

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

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

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

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

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power).

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ BC/DR 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

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ 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 BCD 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 conduct a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and "lessons learned" activity every time the contingency plan is activated.

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. Επισκόπηση

Τίτλος Πρότυπο

1.1 Παραπομπές

1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις

1.3 Σχετικοί κανονισμοί

2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις

Απαιτήσεις
Πηγή Απαίτηση

3. Σχετικοί κανονισμοί

Κανονισμοί
Πηγή Κανονισμός
EULAW Άρθρο 12 1

1.   Για τους σκοπούς της διασφάλισης της αποκατάστασης των συστημάτων και δεδομένων ΤΠΕ με ελάχιστο χρόνο διακοπής, με περιορισμό της διαταραχής και της ζημίας, στο πλαίσιο της οικείας διαχείρισης κινδύνων ΤΠΕ, οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες καταρτίζουν και τεκμηριώνουν:

α)

πολιτικές και διαδικασίες δημιουργίας εφεδρικών συστημάτων στις οποίες προσδιορίζεται το εύρος των δεδομένων που υπόκεινται σε εφεδρικά συστήματα και η ελάχιστη συχνότητα δημιουργίας αντιγράφων ασφαλείας, βάσει της κρισιμότητας των πληροφοριών ή του επιπέδου εμπιστευτικότητας των δεδομένων,

β)

διαδικασίες και μεθόδους αποκατάστασης και ανάκτησης.

EULAW Άρθρο 12 2

2.   Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες δημιουργούν εφεδρικά συστήματα που μπορούν να ενεργοποιηθούν σύμφωνα με τις πολιτικές και τις διαδικασίες δημιουργίας εφεδρικών συστημάτων, καθώς και τις διαδικασίες και τις μεθόδους αποκατάστασης και ανάκτησης. Η ενεργοποίηση εφεδρικών συστημάτων δεν θέτει σε κίνδυνο την ασφάλεια των συστημάτων δικτύου και πληροφοριών ή τη διαθεσιμότητα, τη γνησιότητα, την ακεραιότητα και την εμπιστευτικότητα των δεδομένων. Διενεργούνται περιοδικά δοκιμές των διαδικασιών δημιουργίας εφεδρικών συστημάτων και των διαδικασιών και μεθόδων αποκατάστασης και ανάκτησης.

EULAW Άρθρο 21 Μέτρα διαχείρισης κινδύνων στον τομέα της κυβερνοασφάλειας
EULAW Άρθρο 25 Δοκιμές των σχεδίων επιχειρησιακής συνέχειας των ΤΠΕ
EULAW Άρθρο 26 Σχέδια αντιμετώπισης και ανάκαμψης της λειτουργίας των ΤΠΕ
EULAW Άρθρο 39 Συνιστώσες του σχεδίου επιχειρησιακής συνέχειας των ΤΠΕ
EULAW Άρθρο 40 Δοκιμές των σχεδίων επιχειρησιακής συνέχειας
EULAW Άρθρο 13 Εκπαίδευση και εξέλιξη
EULAW Άρθρο 13 2

2.   Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες προβαίνουν σε επανεξετάσεις κατόπιν συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ, αφότου μείζον συμβάν που σχετίζεται με τις ΤΠΕ διαταράσσει τις βασικές τους δραστηριότητες, αναλύοντας τα αίτια της διαταραχής και προσδιορίζοντας τις βελτιώσεις που απαιτούνται στις λειτουργίες των ΤΠΕ ή στο πλαίσιο της πολιτικής επιχειρησιακής συνέχειας των ΤΠΕ, όπως αναφέρεται στο άρθρο 11.

Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες, πλην των πολύ μικρών επιχειρήσεων, κοινοποιούν στις αρμόδιες αρχές, κατόπιν αιτήματος, τις αλλαγές που εφαρμόστηκαν μετά τις επανεξετάσεις κατόπιν συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ, όπως αναφέρεται στο πρώτο εδάφιο.

Οι επανεξετάσεις κατόπιν συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ, που αναφέρονται στο πρώτο εδάφιο, εξακριβώνουν αν τηρήθηκαν οι καθιερωμένες διαδικασίες και αν τα μέτρα που έχουν ληφθεί ήταν αποτελεσματικά, μεταξύ άλλων σε σχέση με τα εξής:

α)

την ταχύτητα αντίδρασης σε ειδοποιήσεις ασφάλειας και προσδιορισμού των επιπτώσεων και της σοβαρότητας των συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ,

β)

την ποιότητα και την ταχύτητα διενέργειας εγκληματολογικής ανάλυσης, εφόσον κρίνεται σκόπιμο,

γ)

την αποτελεσματικότητα της παραπομπής του συμβάντος στο κατάλληλο επίπεδο εντός της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας,

δ)

την αποτελεσματικότητα της εσωτερικής και εξωτερικής επικοινωνίας.

EULAW Άρθρο 13 3

3.   Τα διδάγματα που αντλούνται τόσο από τις δοκιμές ψηφιακής επιχειρησιακής ανθεκτικότητας που πραγματοποιούνται σύμφωνα με τα άρθρα 26 και 27 όσο και από πραγματικά συμβάντα που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ, ιδίως κυβερνοεπιθέσεις, μαζί με τις προκλήσεις που αντιμετωπίστηκαν κατά την ενεργοποίηση σχεδίων επιχειρησιακής συνέχειας των ΤΠΕ και σχεδίων αντιμετώπισης και ανάκαμψης της λειτουργίας των ΤΠΕ, σε συνδυασμό με τις σχετικές πληροφορίες που ανταλλάσσονται με αντισυμβαλλομένους και αξιολογούνται κατά τη διάρκεια εποπτικών ελέγχων, ενσωματώνονται δεόντως, σε διαρκή βάση, στη διαδικασία αξιολόγησης κινδύνων ΤΠΕ. Τα εν λόγω ευρήματα αποτελούν τη βάση για τη δέουσα επανεξέταση των συναφών συνιστωσών του πλαισίου διαχείρισης κινδύνων ΤΠΕ, όπως αναφέρεται στο άρθρο 6 παράγραφος 1.

Συνδεδεμένα ζητήματα

Συνδέσεις
Τύπος σύνδεσης Ζήτημα
is related to Quarterly
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Technology
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Reduced Operational Productivity
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector)
blocks Revenue Loss
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Loss of Competitive Advantage
blocks Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks OS Credential Dumping
blocks NTDS
blocks Data from Local System
blocks Data from Removable Media
blocks Indicator Removal
blocks Clear Mailbox Data
blocks Automated Collection
blocks Data Destruction
blocks Lifecycle-Triggered Deletion
blocks Data Encrypted for Impact
blocks Inhibit System Recovery
blocks Defacement
blocks Internal Defacement
blocks External Defacement
blocks Disk Wipe
blocks Disk Content Wipe
blocks Disk Structure Wipe
blocks Data Manipulation
blocks Stored Data Manipulation
blocks Runtime Data Manipulation
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to Detect
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks Loss of Critical Knowledge / Capability
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Civil or Political Unrest
blocks Hazardous Materials Emergencies
blocks Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Weapons
blocks Physical Crime
blocks Terrorism & Armed Attacks
blocks Utility Service Disruption
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Hazardous / Degraded Operational Environment
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
blocks BCM-01.02B
blocks BCM-03.01B
blocks BCM-04.02B
is blocked by BCD-11 Contingency Plan Root Cause Analysis (RCA) & Lessons Learned – Assessment Procedure
blocks CP-04 Contingency Plan Testing
blocks CP-04 [L] Contingency Plan Testing
blocks CP-04 [M] Contingency Plan Testing
blocks CP-04 [H] Contingency Plan Testing
blocks ID.IM-02 Improvements are identified from security tests and exercises, including those done in coordination with suppliers and relevant third parties
blocks ID.IM-03 Improvements are identified from execution of operational processes, procedures, and activities
  • 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.