+Data Flow Enforcement – Access Control Lists (ACLs)
---+Deny Traffic by Default & Allow Traffic by Exception
---+Human Reviews
|
Data Flow Enforcement – Access Control Lists (ACLs)
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement and govern Access Control Lists (ACLs) to provide data flow enforcement that explicitly restrict network traffic to only what is authorized.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs)
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
Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Administrative processes enforce the use of human reviews for Access Control Lists (ACLs) and similar rulesets on a routine basis.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Network security 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 personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD.
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
Level 3 Well Defined
Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator).
▪ 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 NET 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 the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to implement and govern Access Control Lists (ACLs) to provide data flow enforcement that explicitly restrict network traffic to only what is authorized.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Network Security (NET) 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
Network Security (NET) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
1. Επισκόπηση
| Τίτλος |
Πρότυπο |
|
Deny Traffic by Default & Allow Traffic by Exception
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to configure firewall and router configurations to deny network traffic by default and allow network traffic by exception (e.g., deny all and permit by exception).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs)
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
Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Network security 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 personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD.
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
Level 3 Well Defined
Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator).
▪ 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 NET 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 the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to configure firewall and router configurations to deny network traffic by default and allow network traffic by exception (e.g., deny all and permit by exception).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Network Security (NET) 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
Network Security (NET) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
|
|
Human Reviews
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to enforce the use of human reviews for Access Control Lists (ACLs) and similar rulesets on a routine basis.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Human review of flagged data transfers
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Policy requiring human review of sensitive data transfers
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Human review process for cross-boundary data transfers
∙ DLP alert review procedures
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ DLP alert triage workflow with human review
∙ Dedicated review team
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise DLP with human review workflow (SOC integration)
∙ SOAR-assisted triage
∙ 24/7 human review for critical transfers
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
Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Network security 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 personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD.
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
Level 3 Well Defined
Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator).
▪ 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 NET 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 the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to enforce the use of human reviews for Access Control Lists (ACLs) and similar rulesets on a routine basis.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Network Security (NET) 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 13 Διαχείριση ασφάλειας δικτύου
Άρθρο 13
Διαχείριση ασφάλειας δικτύου
Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες, στο πλαίσιο των διασφαλίσεων που εγγυώνται την ασφάλεια των δικτύων έναντι εισβολών και κατάχρησης δεδομένων, αναπτύσσουν, τεκμηριώνουν και εφαρμόζουν πολιτικές, διαδικασίες, πρωτόκολλα και εργαλεία για τη διαχείριση της ασφάλειας δικτύου, μεταξύ άλλων όλα τα ακόλουθα:
α)
τον διαχωρισμό και την κατάτμηση των συστημάτων και δικτύων ΤΠΕ, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη:
i)
την κρισιμότητα ή τη σημασία της λειτουργίας την οποία υποστηρίζουν τα εν λόγω συστήματα και δίκτυα ΤΠΕ·
ii)
την ταξινόμηση που καθορίζεται σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 8 παράγραφος 1 του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) 2022/2554·
iii)
το συνολικό προφίλ κινδύνου των πόρων ΤΠΕ οι οποίοι χρησιμοποιούν τα εν λόγω συστήματα και δίκτυα ΤΠΕ·
β)
την τεκμηρίωση όλων των συνδέσεων δικτύου και των ροών δεδομένων της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας·
γ)
τη χρήση χωριστού και ειδικού δικτύου για τη διαχείριση των πόρων ΤΠΕ·
δ)
τον προσδιορισμό και την εφαρμογή ελέγχων πρόσβασης στο δίκτυο για την πρόληψη και τον εντοπισμό συνδέσεων στο δίκτυο της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας από οποιαδήποτε μη εγκεκριμένη συσκευή ή σύστημα, ή τελικό σημείο που δεν πληροί τις απαιτήσεις ασφαλείας της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας·
ε)
την κρυπτογράφηση συνδέσεων δικτύου που διέρχονται μέσω εταιρικών δικτύων, δημόσιων δικτύων, εγχώριων δικτύων, δικτύων τρίτων και ασύρματων δικτύων, για τα χρησιμοποιούμενα πρωτόκολλα επικοινωνίας, με συνεκτίμηση των αποτελεσμάτων της εγκεκριμένης κατηγοριοποίησης δεδομένων, των αποτελεσμάτων της αξιολόγησης κινδύνων ΤΠΕ και της κρυπτογράφησης των συνδέσεων δικτύου που αναφέρονται στο άρθρο 6 παράγραφος 2·
στ)
τον σχεδιασμό δικτύων σύμφωνα με τις απαιτήσεις ασφάλειας ΤΠΕ που έχει θεσπίσει η χρηματοοικονομική οντότητα, με συνεκτίμηση κορυφαίων πρακτικών για τη διασφάλιση της εμπιστευτικότητας, της ακεραιότητας και της διαθεσιμότητας του δικτύου·
ζ)
τη διασφάλιση της κίνησης στο δίκτυο μεταξύ των εσωτερικών δικτύων και του διαδικτύου και άλλων εξωτερικών συνδέσεων·
η)
τον προσδιορισμό των ρόλων και των αρμοδιοτήτων και των βημάτων για τον καθορισμό, την εφαρμογή, την έγκριση, την αλλαγή και την επανεξέταση των κανόνων του τείχους προστασίας και των φίλτρων σύνδεσης·
θ)
τη διενέργεια επανεξετάσεων της αρχιτεκτονικής δικτύου και του σχεδιασμού ασφάλειας δικτύου μία φορά ετησίως και περιοδικά για τις πολύ μικρές επιχειρήσεις, για τον εντοπισμό πιθανών ευπαθειών·
ι)
τα μέτρα για την προσωρινή απομόνωση, κατά περίπτωση, των υποδικτύων και των στοιχείων και συσκευών δικτύου·
ια)
την εφαρμογή βάσης αναφοράς ασφαλούς διαμόρφωσης όλων των στοιχείων του δικτύου και τη θωράκιση του δικτύου και των συσκευών δικτύου σύμφωνα με τυχόν οδηγίες του προμηθευτή, κατά περίπτωση, με πρότυπα, όπως ορίζονται στο άρθρο 2 σημείο 1) του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) αριθ. 1025/2012, και με κορυφαίες πρακτικές·
ιβ)
τις διαδικασίες περιορισμού, κλειδώματος και τερματισμού λειτουργίας συστημάτων και των απομακρυσμένων περιόδων λειτουργίας μετά από συγκεκριμένη περίοδο αδράνειας·
ιγ)
όσον αφορά τις συμφωνίες υπηρεσιών δικτύου:
i)
τον προσδιορισμό και την εξειδίκευση των μέτρων ασφάλειας ΤΠΕ και πληροφοριών, των επιπέδων υπηρεσιών και των απαιτήσεων διαχείρισης όλων των υπηρεσιών δικτύου·
ii)
αν οι εν λόγω υπηρεσίες παρέχονται από ενδοομιλικό πάροχο υπηρεσιών ΤΠΕ ή από τρίτους παρόχους υπηρεσιών ΤΠΕ.
Για τους σκοπούς του στοιχείου η), οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες διενεργούν την επανεξέταση των κανόνων του τείχους προστασίας και των φίλτρων σύνδεσης σε τακτική βάση σύμφωνα με την ταξινόμηση που καθορίζεται σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 8 παράγραφος 1 του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) 2022/2554 και το συνολικό προφίλ κινδύνου των σχετικών συστημάτων ΤΠΕ. Για τα συστήματα ΤΠΕ που υποστηρίζουν κρίσιμες ή σημαντικές λειτουργίες, οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες επαληθεύουν την επάρκεια των υφιστάμενων κανόνων του τείχους προστασίας και των φίλτρων σύνδεσης τουλάχιστον κάθε 6 μήνες.
|
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.
|