+Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP)

Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP)

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation and monitoring of risk-based vulnerability management capabilities.

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

∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program

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

∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program

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

∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program

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

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-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 apply software patches through an informal process.
▪ Occasional vulnerability scanning is conducted on High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ Vulnerability scanning services may not be internal competencies and have to be outsourced.
▪ Penetration testing services may not be internal competencies and have to be outsourced.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability 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 define the breadth and depth of coverage for vulnerability scanning that covers system components scanned and types of vulnerabilities that are checked for.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel maintain a structured process to apply software patches and other vulnerability remediation efforts.

Level 3 Well Defined

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning solution).
▪ 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 VPM 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 facilitate the implementation and monitoring of vulnerability management controls.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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. Overview

Summary	Standard

1.1 References

1.2 Identified Requirements

1.3 Related Regulations

2. Identified Requirements

Requirements
Source	Requirement

3. Related Regulations

Regulations

EULAW

Article 21 Cybersecurity risk-management measures
-

EULAW

Article 3 ICT risk management

Article 3

ICT risk management

Financial entities shall develop, document, and implement ICT risk management policies and procedures that shall contain all of the following:

(a)

an indication of the approval of the risk tolerance level for ICT risk established in accordance with Article 6(8), point (b), of Regulation (EU) 2022/2554;

(b)

a procedure and a methodology to conduct the ICT risk assessment, identifying:

(i)

vulnerabilities and threats that affect or may affect the supported business functions, the ICT systems and ICT assets supporting those functions;

(ii)

the quantitative or qualitative indicators to measure the impact and likelihood of the vulnerabilities and threats referred to in point (i);

(c)

the procedure to identify, implement, and document ICT risk treatment measures for the ICT risks identified and assessed, including the determination of ICT risk treatment measures necessary to bring ICT risk within the risk tolerance level referred to in point (a);

(d)

for the residual ICT risks that are still present following the implementation of the ICT risk treatment measures referred to in point (c):

(i)

provisions on the identification of those residual ICT risks;

(ii)

the assignment of roles and responsibilities regarding:

(1)

the acceptance of the residual ICT risks that exceed the financial entity’s risk tolerance level referred to in point (a);

(2)

for the review process referred to in point (iv) of this point (d);

(iii)

the development of an inventory of the accepted residual ICT risks, including a justification for their acceptance;

(iv)

provisions on the review of the accepted residual ICT risks at least once a year, including:

(1)

the identification of any changes to the residual ICT risks;

(2)

the assessment of available mitigation measures;

(3)

the assessment of whether the reasons justifying the acceptance of residual ICT risks are still valid and applicable at the date of the review;

(e)

provisions on the monitoring of:

(i)

any changes to the ICT risk and cyber threat landscape;

(ii)

internal and external vulnerabilities and threats:

(iii)

ICT risk of the financial entity that enables promp detection of changes that could affect its ICT risk profile;

(f)

provisions on a process to ensure that any changes to the business strategy and the digital operational resilience strategy of the financial entity are taken into account.

For the purposes of the first paragraph, point (c), the procedure referred to in that point shall ensure:

(a)

the monitoring of the effectiveness of the ICT risk treatment measures implemented;

(b)

the assessment of whether the established risk tolerance levels of the financial entity have been attained;

(c)

the assessment of whether the financial entity has taken actions to correct or improve those measures where necessary.

EULAW