+Content of Event Logs
---+Audit Trails
|
Content of Event Logs
Description
Mechanisms exist to configure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) to produce event logs that contain sufficient information to, at a minimum:
(1) Establish what type of event occurred;
(2) When (date and time) the event occurred;
(3) Where the event occurred;
(4) The source of the event;
(5) The outcome (success or failure) of the event; and
(6) The identity of any user/subject associated with the event.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
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
Continuous Monitoring (MON) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with MON domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Event monitoring-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Monitoring is primarily reactive in nature, focused on identifying incidents that occurred.
▪ Event log reviews primarily rely on manual processes to identify anomalous behaviors.
▪ Generating event logs and the review of those event logs is narrowly-focused to business-critical Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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 MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with MON 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 MON domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Continuous monitoring-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Continuous monitoring may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce security event logging to contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
▪ SBC enforce logging to link system access to individual users or service accounts using a non-repudiation capability to protect against an individual falsely denying having performed a particular action.
▪ SBC enforce local security event logging and forward those logs to a centralized log repository to provide an alternate audit capability in the event of a failure in the primary audit capability.
Level 3 Well Defined
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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 MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel use a structured process via Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) to review and analyze logs.
▪ A Security Operations Center (SOC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain MON domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of continuous monitoring operations (e.g., Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)).
▪ 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 MON 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).
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce security event logging to contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to configure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) to produce event logs that contain sufficient information to, at a minimum:
(1) Establish what type of event occurred;
(2) When (date and time) the event occurred;
(3) Where the event occurred;
(4) The source of the event;
(5) The outcome (success or failure) of the event; and
(6) The identity of any user/subject associated with the event.
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 |
|
Audit Trails
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to link system access to individual users or service accounts.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
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
Continuous Monitoring (MON) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with MON domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Event monitoring-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Monitoring is primarily reactive in nature, focused on identifying incidents that occurred.
▪ Event log reviews primarily rely on manual processes to identify anomalous behaviors.
▪ Generating event logs and the review of those event logs is narrowly-focused to business-critical Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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 MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with MON 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 MON domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Continuous monitoring-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Continuous monitoring may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce security event logging to contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
▪ SBC enforce logging to link system access to individual users or service accounts using a non-repudiation capability to protect against an individual falsely denying having performed a particular action.
▪ SBC enforce local security event logging and forward those logs to a centralized log repository to provide an alternate audit capability in the event of a failure in the primary audit capability.
▪ A log aggregator, or similar automated tool, provides an event log report generation capability to aid in detecting and assessing anomalous activities on business-critical TAASD.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel configure alerts for critical or sensitive data that is stored, transmitted and processed on assets.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel retain security event logs for a time period consistent with records retention requirements to provide support for after-the-fact investigations of security incidents and to meet statutory, regulatory and/or contractual retention requirements.
Level 3 Well Defined
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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 MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel use a structured process via Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) to review and analyze logs.
▪ A Security Operations Center (SOC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain MON domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of continuous monitoring operations (e.g., Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)).
▪ 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 MON 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).
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce security event logging to contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to link system access to individual users or service accounts.
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.
|
1.1 Παραπομπές
1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
1.3 Σχετικοί κανονισμοί
2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
3. Σχετικοί κανονισμοί
Κανονισμοί
| Πηγή |
Κανονισμός |
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 8 Πολιτικές και διαδικασίες για τις λειτουργίες ΤΠΕ
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 12 Καταγραφή
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 12 Καταγραφή
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 12 Καταγραφή
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 12 Καταγραφή
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 12 Καταγραφή
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 12 Καταγραφή
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 12 Καταγραφή
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 12 Καταγραφή
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 23 Εντοπισμός ασυνήθιστων δραστηριοτήτων και κριτήρια για τον εντοπισμό και την αντιμετώπιση συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ
|
|
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.
|
Συνδεδεμένα ζητήματα
- 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.
|