+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. Επισκόπηση
| Τίτλος |
Πρότυπο |
|
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 Παραπομπές
1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
1.3 Σχετικοί κανονισμοί
2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
3. Σχετικοί κανονισμοί
Κανονισμοί
| Πηγή |
Κανονισμός |
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 23 Υποχρεώσεις αναφοράς περιστατικών
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 17 Σύστημα διαχείρισης ποιότητας
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 39 Συνιστώσες του σχεδίου επιχειρησιακής συνέχειας των ΤΠΕ
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 14 Επικοινωνία
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 19 Αναφορά μειζόνων συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ και προαιρετική κοινοποίηση σημαντικών κυβερνοαπειλών
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 45 Ρυθμίσεις ανταλλαγής πληροφοριών όσον αφορά στοιχεία και πληροφορίες για κυβερνοαπειλές
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 34 Ανακοίνωση παραβίασης δεδομένων προσωπικού χαρακτήρα στο υποκείμενο των δεδομένων
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 14 Υποχρεώσεις αναφοράς για τους κατασκευαστές
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 15 Εθελοντική αναφορά
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 14 Επικοινωνία
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 19 Αναφορά μειζόνων συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ και προαιρετική κοινοποίηση σημαντικών κυβερνοαπειλών
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 45 Ρυθμίσεις ανταλλαγής πληροφοριών όσον αφορά στοιχεία και πληροφορίες για κυβερνοαπειλές
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 34 Ανακοίνωση παραβίασης δεδομένων προσωπικού χαρακτήρα στο υποκείμενο των δεδομένων
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 14 Υποχρεώσεις αναφοράς για τους κατασκευαστές
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 15 Εθελοντική αναφορά
|
|
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
|
Άρθρο 14 1
1. Στο πλαίσιο της διαχείρισης κινδύνων ΤΠΕ που αναφέρεται στο άρθρο 6 παράγραφος 1, οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες διαθέτουν σχέδια επικοινωνίας σε καταστάσεις κρίσης που καθιστούν δυνατή την υπεύθυνη γνωστοποίηση, τουλάχιστον, μειζόνων συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ ή ευπαθειών σε πελάτες και αντισυμβαλλομένους, καθώς και στο κοινό, ανάλογα με την περίπτωση.
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 14 2
2. Στο πλαίσιο της διαχείρισης κινδύνων ΤΠΕ, οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες εφαρμόζουν πολιτικές επικοινωνίας που απευθύνονται στο εσωτερικό προσωπικό και σε εξωτερικούς συμφεροντούχους. Στις πολιτικές επικοινωνίας για το προσωπικό λαμβάνεται υπόψη η ανάγκη διαχωρισμού μεταξύ, αφενός, του προσωπικού που συμμετέχει στη διαχείριση κινδύνων ΤΠΕ, ιδίως του προσωπικού που είναι υπεύθυνο για την αντιμετώπιση και την ανάκαμψη, και, αφετέρου, του προσωπικού που πρέπει να ενημερωθεί.
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 14 3
3. Η αρμοδιότητα της εφαρμογής της στρατηγικής επικοινωνίας για συμβάντα που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ και της εκτέλεσης των καθηκόντων προς το κοινό και τα μέσα ενημέρωσης ανατίθεται τουλάχιστον σε ένα πρόσωπο της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας.
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 19 1
1. Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες αναφέρουν στην αρμόδια αρχή μείζονα συμβάντα που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ, όπως ορίζεται στο άρθρο 46, σύμφωνα με την παράγραφο 4 του παρόντος άρθρου.
Όταν μια χρηματοοικονομική οντότητα υπόκειται σε εποπτεία από περισσότερες από μία εθνικές αρμόδιες αρχές, οι οποίες αναφέρονται στο άρθρο 46, τα κράτη μέλη ορίζουν ενιαία αρμόδια αρχή ως τη σχετική αρμόδια αρχή που είναι υπεύθυνη για την εκτέλεση των λειτουργιών και των καθηκόντων που προβλέπονται στο παρόν άρθρο.
Τα πιστωτικά ιδρύματα που ταξινομούνται ως σημαντικά, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 6 παράγραφος 4 του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) αριθ. 1024/2013, αναφέρουν μείζονα συμβάντα που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ στη σχετική εθνική αρμόδια αρχή που ορίζεται σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 4 της οδηγίας 2013/36/ΕΕ, η οποία διαβιβάζει αμέσως την εν λόγω αναφορά στην ΕΚΤ.
Για τους σκοπούς του πρώτου εδαφίου, οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες, αφού συλλέξουν και αναλύσουν όλες τις σχετικές πληροφορίες, καταρτίζουν την αρχική κοινοποίηση και τις αναφορές που προβλέπονται στην παράγραφο 4 του παρόντος άρθρου, χρησιμοποιώντας τα υποδείγματα που αναφέρονται στο άρθρο 20, και τις υποβάλλουν στην αρμόδια αρχή. Σε περίπτωση που μια τεχνική αδυναμία εμποδίζει την υποβολή της αρχικής κοινοποίησης με τη χρήση του υποδείγματος, οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες ενημερώνουν σχετικά την αρμόδια αρχή με εναλλακτικά μέσα.
Η αρχική κοινοποίηση και οι αναφορές που προβλέπονται στην παράγραφο 4 περιλαμβάνουν όλες τις απαραίτητες πληροφορίες προκειμένου η αρμόδια αρχή να είναι σε θέση να προσδιορίσει τη σημασία του μείζονος συμβάντος που σχετίζεται με τις ΤΠΕ και να προβεί σε εκτίμηση των πιθανών διασυνοριακών επιπτώσεων.
Με την επιφύλαξη των αναφορών σύμφωνα με το πρώτο εδάφιο από τη χρηματοοικονομική οντότητα στη σχετική αρμόδια αρχή, τα κράτη μέλη μπορούν επιπλέον να ορίζουν ότι ορισμένες ή όλες οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες παρέχουν επίσης την αρχική κοινοποίηση και κάθε αναφορά που προβλέπεται στην παράγραφο 4 του παρόντος άρθρου, χρησιμοποιώντας τα υποδείγματα που αναφέρονται στο άρθρο 20, στις αρμόδιες αρχές ή στις ομάδες αντιμετώπισης συμβάντων ασφάλειας σε υπολογιστές (CSIRT) που έχουν οριστεί ή συσταθεί σύμφωνα με την οδηγία (ΕΕ) 2022/2555
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 19 2
2. Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες μπορούν, σε προαιρετική βάση, να κοινοποιούν σημαντικές κυβερνοαπειλές στη σχετική αρμόδια αρχή όταν θεωρούν ότι η απειλή είναι σημαντική για το χρηματοοικονομικό σύστημα, τους χρήστες υπηρεσιών ή τους πελάτες. Η σχετική αρμόδια αρχή μπορεί να παρέχει τις πληροφορίες αυτές σε άλλες σχετικές αρχές που αναφέρονται στην παράγραφο 6.
Τα πιστωτικά ιδρύματα που ταξινομούνται ως σημαντικά, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 6 παράγραφος 4 του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) αριθ. 1024/2013, μπορούν, σε προαιρετική βάση, να κοινοποιούν σημαντικές κυβερνοαπειλές στη σχετική εθνική αρμόδια αρχή, η οποία έχει οριστεί σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 4 της οδηγίας 2013/36/ΕΕ, και η οποία διαβιβάζει αμέσως την κοινοποίηση στην ΕΚΤ.
Τα κράτη μέλη μπορούν να ορίζουν ότι οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες που κοινοποιούν σε προαιρετική βάση σύμφωνα με το πρώτο εδάφιο μπορούν επίσης να διαβιβάζουν την εν λόγω κοινοποίηση στις CSIRT που ορίζονται ή συστήνονται σύμφωνα με ην οδηγία (ΕΕ) 2022/2555
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 19 3
3. Κατά την εκδήλωση μείζονος συμβάντος, το οποίο σχετίζεται με τις ΤΠΕ και έχει επιπτώσεις στα οικονομικά συμφέροντα των πελατών, οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες ενημερώνουν, χωρίς αδικαιολόγητη καθυστέρηση, αφού λάβουν γνώση του συμβάντος, τους πελάτες όσον αφορά το μείζον συμβάν που σχετίζεται με τις ΤΠΕ και σχετικά με τα μέτρα που έχουν ληφθεί για τον περιορισμό των δυσμενών επιπτώσεων του εν λόγω συμβάντος.
Σε περίπτωση σημαντικής κυβερνοαπειλής, οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες ενημερώνουν, κατά περίπτωση, τους πελάτες τους που ενδέχεται να επηρεαστούν σχετικά με τυχόν κατάλληλα μέτρα προστασίας τα οποία ενδέχεται να εξετάσουν οι τελευταίοι.
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 19 4
4. Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες, εντός των προθεσμιών που καθορίζονται σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 20 πρώτο εδάφιο στοιχείο α) σημείο ii), υποβάλλουν τα ακόλουθα στη σχετική αρμόδια αρχή:
|
β)
|
ενδιάμεση αναφορά μετά την αρχική κοινοποίηση που αναφέρεται στο στοιχείο α), αμέσως μόλις μεταβληθεί σημαντικά η κατάσταση του αρχικού συμβάντος ή μεταβληθεί ο χειρισμός του μείζονος συμβάντος που σχετίζεται με τις ΤΠΕ βάσει νέων διαθέσιμων πληροφοριών, ακολουθούμενη, κατά περίπτωση, από επικαιροποιημένες κοινοποιήσεις κάθε φορά που είναι διαθέσιμη σχετική επικαιροποίηση της κατάστασης, καθώς και κατόπιν συγκεκριμένου αιτήματος της αρμόδιας αρχής,
|
|
γ)
|
τελική αναφορά, όταν ολοκληρωθεί η ανάλυση των βαθύτερων αιτίων, ανεξάρτητα από το αν έχουν ήδη εφαρμοστεί μέτρα μετριασμού, και όταν είναι διαθέσιμα τα στοιχεία των πραγματικών επιπτώσεων προς αντικατάσταση των εκτιμήσεων.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 19 5
5. Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες μπορούν να αναθέτουν, σύμφωνα με το ενωσιακό και εθνικό τομεακό δίκαιο, τις υποχρεώσεις αναφοράς που προβλέπονται στο παρόν άρθρο σε τρίτο πάροχο υπηρεσιών. Σε περίπτωση τέτοιας εξωτερικής ανάθεσης, η χρηματοοικονομική οντότητα παραμένει εξολοκλήρου υπεύθυνη για την εκπλήρωση των απαιτήσεων αναφοράς συμβάντων.
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 45 3
3. Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες κοινοποιούν στις αρμόδιες αρχές τη συμμετοχή τους στις ρυθμίσεις ανταλλαγής πληροφοριών που αναφέρονται στην παράγραφο 1, κατά την επικύρωση της συμμετοχής τους ως μελών ή, κατά περίπτωση, της παύσης της συμμετοχής τους ως μελών, αμέσως μετά την έναρξη ισχύος της.
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 96 Αναφορά συμβάντων
|
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.
|