+Dynamic Isolation & Segregation (Sandboxing)
|
Dynamic Isolation & Segregation (Sandboxing)
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to dynamically isolate (e.g., sandbox) untrusted components during runtime, where the component is isolated in a fault-contained environment but it can still collaborate with the application.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Use sandbox environment for testing suspicious files/code
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Sandbox analysis tool (e.g., Any.run, free tiers)
∙ Isolation policy for suspicious activity
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Dynamic sandboxing solution (e.g., Cuckoo Sandbox)
∙ Network isolation for suspected threats
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise sandbox platform (e.g., Palo Alto WildFire, Cisco Threat Grid)
∙ Automated isolation workflows
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise sandboxing and dynamic isolation platform
∙ Automated containment via SOAR
∙ Network quarantine capabilities
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
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
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 automatically dynamically isolate (e.g., sandbox) untrusted components during runtime, where the component is isolated in a fault-contained environment but it can still collaborate with the application.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
1. Resumen
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 13 Gestión de la seguridad de las redes
Artículo 13
Gestión de la seguridad de las redes
Dentro de las salvaguardias que garanticen la seguridad de las redes contra las intrusiones y el uso indebido de los datos, las entidades financieras elaborarán, documentarán y aplicarán políticas, procedimientos, protocolos y herramientas en materia de gestión de la seguridad de las redes que incluirán todos los aspectos siguientes:
a)
la separación y segmentación de los sistemas y redes de TIC teniendo en cuenta:
i)
el carácter esencial o la importancia de la función sustentada por dichos sistemas y redes de TIC,
ii)
la clasificación establecida de conformidad con el artículo 8, apartado 1, del Reglamento (UE) 2022/2554,
iii)
el perfil de riesgo general de los activos de TIC que utilicen dichos sistemas y redes de TIC;
b)
la documentación de todas las conexiones de red y flujos de datos de la entidad financiera;
c)
el uso de una red separada y específica para la administración de los activos de TIC;
d)
la determinación y aplicación de controles de acceso a las redes para prevenir y detectar las conexiones a la red de la entidad financiera mediante cualquier dispositivo o sistema no autorizado o cualquier nodo final que no cumpla los requisitos de seguridad de la entidad financiera;
e)
el cifrado de las conexiones de red que pasen por redes corporativas, redes públicas, redes domésticas, redes de terceros y redes inalámbricas, en lo referente a los protocolos de comunicación utilizados, teniendo en cuenta los resultados de la clasificación de datos aprobada, los resultados de la evaluación del riesgo relacionado con las TIC y el cifrado de las conexiones de red a que se refiere el artículo 6, apartado 2;
f)
el diseño de las redes en consonancia con los requisitos de seguridad de las TIC establecidos por la entidad financiera, teniendo en cuenta las prácticas punteras para garantizar la confidencialidad, integridad y disponibilidad de las redes;
g)
la protección del tráfico de red entre las redes internas e internet y otras conexiones externas;
h)
la determinación de las funciones y responsabilidades y de las etapas para la especificación, aplicación, aprobación, modificación y revisión de las reglas cortafuegos y los filtros de conexión;
i)
la revisión de la arquitectura de las redes y del diseño de la seguridad de las redes una vez al año, y periódicamente en el caso de las microempresas, con el fin de detectar posibles vulnerabilidades;
j)
las medidas para aislar temporalmente, en caso necesario, las subredes y los componentes y dispositivos de red;
k)
la aplicación de una configuración segura de referencia de todos los componentes de las redes y el endurecimiento de las redes y de los dispositivos de red en consonancia con las instrucciones de los proveedores, las normas definidas en el artículo 2, punto 1, del Reglamento (UE) n.o 1025/2012, en su caso, y las prácticas punteras;
l)
los procedimientos para limitar, bloquear y cerrar las sesiones de sistema y a distancia tras un período de inactividad especificado;
m)
respecto de los acuerdos de servicios de red:
i)
la determinación y especificación de las medidas de seguridad de las TIC y de la información, los niveles de servicio y los requisitos de gestión de todos los servicios de red,
ii)
la especificación de si dichos servicios son prestados por un proveedor intragrupo o por proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC.
A efectos de la letra h), las entidades financieras revisarán periódicamente las reglas cortafuegos y los filtros de conexión teniendo en cuenta la clasificación establecida de conformidad con el artículo 8, apartado 1, del Reglamento (UE) 2022/2554 y el perfil de riesgo general de los sistemas de TIC que intervengan. En el caso de los sistemas de TIC que sustenten funciones esenciales o importantes, las entidades financieras verificarán la adecuación de las reglas cortafuegos y los filtros de conexión vigentes al menos cada seis meses.
|
Incidencias vinculadas
- 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.
|