+Chain of Custody & Forensics
---+Licensed Forensic Investigators
|
Chain of Custody & Forensics
Description
Mechanisms exist to perform digital forensics and maintain the integrity of the chain of custody, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and industry-recognized secure practices.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.com)
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 perform digital forensics and maintain the integrity of the chain of custody, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and industry-recognized secure practices.
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 |
|
Licensed Forensic Investigators
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize licensed forensic investigators to perform data analysis for evidentiary purposes that may be used in legal proceedings or to prove wrongdoing.
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
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.
▪ For eDiscovery, IT and/or cybersecurity personnel manually identify and collect Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in order to respond to a request from a lawsuit or investigation.
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.
▪ Incident responders are proficient on their specific IRP role(s) and responsibilities through recurring training events (e.g., annual rock drill).
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 utilize licensed forensic investigators to perform data analysis for evidentiary purposes that may be used in legal proceedings or to prove wrongdoing.
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 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.
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 23 Υποχρεώσεις αναφοράς περιστατικών
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 22 Πολιτική διαχείρισης συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ
Άρθρο 22
Πολιτική διαχείρισης συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ
Στο πλαίσιο των μηχανισμών για τον εντοπισμό ασυνήθιστων δραστηριοτήτων, συμπεριλαμβανομένων ζητημάτων που αφορούν τις επιδόσεις του δικτύου ΤΠΕ και συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ, οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες αναπτύσσουν, τεκμηριώνουν και εφαρμόζουν πολιτική συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ, μέσω της οποίας:
α)
τεκμηριώνουν τη διαδικασία διαχείρισης συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ, η οποία αναφέρεται στο άρθρο 17 του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) 2022/2554·
β)
καταρτίζουν κατάλογο των σχετικών επαφών με εσωτερικές λειτουργίες και εξωτερικά ενδιαφερόμενα μέρη που συμμετέχουν άμεσα στην ασφάλεια των λειτουργιών ΤΠΕ, μεταξύ άλλων όσον αφορά:
i)
τον εντοπισμό και την παρακολούθηση κυβερνοαπειλών·
ii)
τον εντοπισμό ασυνήθιστων δραστηριοτήτων·
γ)
θεσπίζουν, εφαρμόζουν και θέτουν σε λειτουργία τεχνικούς, οργανωτικούς και επιχειρησιακούς μηχανισμούς για την υποστήριξη της διαδικασίας διαχείρισης συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ, συμπεριλαμβανομένων μηχανισμών που επιτρέπουν τον έγκαιρο εντοπισμό ασυνήθιστων δραστηριοτήτων και συμπεριφορών σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 23 του παρόντος κανονισμού·
▼C1
δ)
διατηρούν όλα τα αποδεικτικά στοιχεία για τα συμβάντα που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ για χρονικό διάστημα που δεν υπερβαίνει το αναγκαίο για τους σκοπούς για τους οποίους συλλέγονται τα δεδομένα, ανάλογα με την κρισιμότητα των επηρεαζόμενων επιχειρηματικών λειτουργιών, των υποστηρικτικών διαδικασιών, των πόρων ΤΠΕ και των πληροφοριακών πόρων, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 8 παράγραφος 2 του κατ’ εξουσιοδότηση κανονισμού (ΕΕ) 2024/1772 της Επιτροπής (
2
) και με οποιαδήποτε ισχύουσα απαίτηση διατήρησης σύμφωνα με το ενωσιακό δίκαιο·
▼B
ε)
θεσπίζουν και εφαρμόζουν μηχανισμούς για την ανάλυση σημαντικών ή επαναλαμβανόμενων συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ και πρακτικών όσον αφορά τον αριθμό και την εμφάνιση συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ.
Για τους σκοπούς του στοιχείου δ), οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες διατηρούν τα αποδεικτικά στοιχεία που αναφέρονται στο εν λόγω στοιχείο με ασφαλή τρόπο.
|
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.
|