+Contingency Plan Testing & Exercises
---+Coordinated Testing with Related Plans
---+Contingency Plan Testing For Alternate Storage & Processing Sites
|
Contingency Plan Testing & Exercises
Description
Mechanisms exist to conduct tests and/or exercises to evaluate the contingency plan's effectiveness and the organization's readiness to execute the plan.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Tabletop exercises
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Tabletop exercises
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Tabletop exercises ∙ Simulated events
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Tabletop exercises ∙ Simulated events
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ 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 BCD 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 conduct tests and/or exercises to evaluate the contingency plan's effectiveness and the organization's readiness to execute the plan.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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. Resumen
| Título |
Estándar |
|
Coordinated Testing with Related Plans
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to coordinate contingency plan testing with internal and external parties responsible for related plans.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Tabletop exercises
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Tabletop exercises
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Tabletop exercises ∙ Red Team testing ∙ Penetration testing
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Tabletop exercises ∙ Red Team testing ∙ Penetration testing
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Tabletop exercises ∙ Red Team testing ∙ Penetration testing
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ 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 BCD 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 coordinate contingency plan testing with internal and external elements responsible for related plans.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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.
|
|
Contingency Plan Testing For Alternate Storage & Processing Sites
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to test contingency plans at alternate storage & processing sites to both familiarize contingency personnel with the facility and evaluate the capabilities of the alternate processing site to support contingency operations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Failover testing ∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Failover testing ∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Failover testing ∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Failover testing ∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Failover testing ∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ A dedicated alternate site(s) is/are equipped to be compatible with the production network's processing, storage, connectivity and other infrastructure needs. ▪ Alternate sites are given priority of service to meet applicable RTOs and/or RPOs. ▪ RTOs are used to identify business-critical TAASD, which are given priority of service in alternate processing and storage sites.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ 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 BCD 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 test contingency plans at alternate storage & processing sites to both familiarize contingency personnel with the facility and evaluate the capabilities of the alternate processing site to support contingency operations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 Referencias
1.2 Requisitos identificados
1.3 Regulaciones relacionadas
2. Requisitos identificados
Requisitos
| Fuente |
Requisito |
3. Regulaciones relacionadas
Regulaciones
| Fuente |
Regulación |
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 Componentes de la política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 Componentes de la política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 25 Pruebas de los planes de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 25 Pruebas de los planes de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 25 Pruebas de los planes de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 25 Pruebas de los planes de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 25 Pruebas de los planes de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 27 Formato y contenido del informe sobre la revisión del marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 40 Pruebas de los planes de continuidad de la actividad
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 40 Pruebas de los planes de continuidad de la actividad
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 40 Pruebas de los planes de continuidad de la actividad
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 Respuesta y recuperación
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 Requisitos generales para la realización de pruebas de resiliencia operativa digital
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 4
4. Las entidades financieras establecerán, mantendrán y someterán a prueba periódicamente planes adecuados de continuidad de las actividades de TIC, en particular en lo que se refiere a las funciones esenciales o importantes externalizadas o contratadas mediante acuerdos con proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 6
6. Como parte de su gestión global del riesgo relacionado con las TIC, las entidades financieras:
|
a)
|
someterán a prueba los planes de continuidad de la actividad y los planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC en relación con los sistemas de TIC que sustenten todas las funciones al menos una vez al año, así como en caso de que se produzca cualquier cambio sustancial en los sistemas de TIC que sustenten funciones esenciales o importantes;
|
|
b)
|
someterán a prueba los planes de comunicación en caso de crisis establecidos de conformidad con el artículo 14.
|
A efectos del párrafo primero, letra a), las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas incluirán, en los planes de pruebas, escenarios de ciberataques y de conmutación entre la infraestructura primaria de TIC y la capacidad redundante, las copias de seguridad y las instalaciones redundantes necesarias para cumplir con las obligaciones establecidas en el artículo 12.
Las entidades financieras revisarán periódicamente su política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC y sus planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC teniendo en cuenta los resultados de las pruebas realizadas de conformidad con el párrafo primero y las recomendaciones derivadas de los controles de auditoría o las revisiones supervisoras.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 1
1. A fin de evaluar el estado de preparación para gestionar incidentes relacionados con las TIC, o de detectar debilidades, deficiencias y carencias en materia de resiliencia operativa digital y de aplicar sin demora medidas correctoras, las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas establecerán, mantendrán y revisarán, teniendo en cuenta los criterios establecidos en el artículo 4, apartado 2, un programa de pruebas de resiliencia operativa digital sólido y completo que forme parte del marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC a que se refiere el artículo 6.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 2
2. El programa de pruebas de resiliencia operativa digital incluirá una serie de evaluaciones, pruebas, métodos, prácticas y herramientas que se aplicarán de conformidad con los artículos 25 y 26.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 3
3. Al llevar a cabo el programa de pruebas de resiliencia operativa digital a que se refiere el apartado 1 del presente artículo, las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas seguirán un enfoque basado en el riesgo que tengan en cuenta los criterios establecidos en el artículo 4, apartado 2, considerando debidamente el panorama cambiante del riesgo relacionado con las TIC, todo riesgo específico al que la entidad financiera de que se trate esté o pueda estar expuesta, el carácter esencial de los activos de información y de los servicios prestados, así como cualquier otro factor que la entidad financiera considere apropiado.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 4
4. Las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas garantizarán que las pruebas sean realizadas por partes independientes, ya sean internas o externas. Cuando un probador interno se encargue de realizar las pruebas, las entidades financieras dedicarán recursos suficientes y garantizarán que se evitan los conflictos de intereses durante todas las fases de constitución y ejecución de las pruebas.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 5
5. Las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas establecerán procedimientos y políticas para ordenar por prioridades, clasificar y corregir todos los problemas descubiertos durante la realización de las pruebas y establecerán métodos de validación internos para asegurarse de que todas las debilidades, deficiencias o carencias sean tratadas de manera exhaustiva.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 6
6. Las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas garantizarán, al menos una vez al año, que se efectúen las pruebas apropiadas de todos los sistemas y aplicaciones de TIC que sustenten funciones esenciales o importantes.
|
Incidencias vinculadas
- Secure Controls Framework -
EN: GRCA includes the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) content, © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, used under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. SCF control numbers, names, descriptions and mappings appear exactly as published by the SCF Council – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA may group or reorder SCF content for display, which does not change SCF content; the mappings are shown as links to the frameworks they name. Learn more at https://securecontrolsframework.com.
DE: GRCA enthält Inhalte des Secure Controls Framework® (SCF), © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, genutzt unter der Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. Nummern, Namen, Beschreibungen und Zuordnungen der SCF-Controls erscheinen genau so, wie der SCF Council sie veröffentlicht – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA gruppiert oder sortiert SCF-Inhalte für die Anzeige, ohne sie zu verändern; die Zuordnungen erscheinen als Verknüpfungen zu den genannten Regelwerken. Mehr unter https://securecontrolsframework.com.
|