+Contingency Plan Root Cause Analysis (RCA) & Lessons Learned

Contingency Plan Root Cause Analysis (RCA) & Lessons Learned

Description

Mechanisms exist to conduct a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and "lessons learned" activity every time the contingency plan is activated.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

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

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

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

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

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).

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 a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and "lessons learned" activity every time the contingency plan is activated.

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

Título Estándar

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 12 1

1.   Con el fin de garantizar el restablecimiento de los sistemas de TIC y los datos con un tiempo mínimo de inactividad y una perturbación y pérdida limitadas, como parte de su marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC, las entidades financieras desarrollarán y documentarán:

a)

políticas y procedimientos de respaldo que especifiquen el alcance de los datos objeto de respaldo y la frecuencia mínima de este, en función del carácter esencial de la información o del nivel de confidencialidad de los datos;

b)

procedimientos y métodos de restablecimiento y recuperación.

EULAW Artículo 12 2

2.   Las entidades financieras establecerán sistemas de respaldo que puedan activarse de conformidad con las políticas y procedimientos de respaldo, así como procedimientos y métodos de restablecimiento y recuperación. La activación de sistemas de respaldo no pondrá en peligro la seguridad de las redes y los sistemas de información ni la disponibilidad, autenticidad, integridad o confidencialidad de los datos. Las pruebas de los procedimientos de respaldo y restablecimiento y los procedimientos y métodos de recuperación se llevarán a cabo periódicamente.

EULAW Artículo 21 Medidas para la gestión de riesgos de ciberseguridad
-
EULAW Artículo 25 Pruebas de los planes de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 39 Componentes del plan de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 40 Pruebas de los planes de continuidad de la actividad
-
EULAW Artículo 13 Aprendizaje y evolución
-
EULAW Artículo 13 2

2.   Las entidades financieras llevarán a cabo revisiones tras incidentes relacionados con las TIC después de que un incidente grave relacionado con las TIC perturbe sus actividades principales, analizando sus causas e identificando las mejoras necesarias para las operaciones de TIC o en la política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC a que se refiere el artículo 11.

Las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas comunicarán, previa petición, a las autoridades competentes los cambios que se hayan introducido después de las revisiones tras incidentes relacionados con las TIC a que se refiere el párrafo primero.

Las revisiones tras incidentes relacionados con las TIC a que se refiere el párrafo primero determinarán si se han seguido los procedimientos establecidos y si las medidas adoptadas han sido eficaces, inclusive en relación con lo siguiente:

a)

la rapidez a la hora de responder a las alertas de seguridad y determinar las repercusiones de los incidentes relacionados con las TIC y su gravedad;

b)

la calidad y rapidez en la realización de un análisis forense, cuando se considere oportuno;

c)

la eficacia de la activación de los niveles sucesivos de intervención en caso de incidente dentro de la entidad financiera;

d)

la eficacia de la comunicación interna y externa.

EULAW Artículo 13 3

3.   Las enseñanzas derivadas de las pruebas de resiliencia operativa digital llevadas a cabo de conformidad con los artículos 26 y 27 y de los incidentes reales relacionados con las TIC, en particular los ciberataques, junto con los problemas que se hayan planteado al activar los planes de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC y los planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC, además de la información pertinente intercambiada con las contrapartes y evaluada durante las revisiones supervisoras, se incorporarán debidamente de forma continua al proceso de evaluación del riesgo relacionado con las TIC. Tales hallazgos conformarán la base para las revisiones adecuadas de los componentes pertinentes del marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC a que se refiere el artículo 6, apartado 1.

Incidencias vinculadas

Vínculos
Tipo de vínculo Incidencia
is related to Quarterly
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Technology
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Reduced Operational Productivity
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector)
blocks Revenue Loss
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Loss of Competitive Advantage
blocks Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks OS Credential Dumping
blocks NTDS
blocks Data from Local System
blocks Data from Removable Media
blocks Indicator Removal
blocks Clear Mailbox Data
blocks Automated Collection
blocks Data Destruction
blocks Lifecycle-Triggered Deletion
blocks Data Encrypted for Impact
blocks Inhibit System Recovery
blocks Defacement
blocks Internal Defacement
blocks External Defacement
blocks Disk Wipe
blocks Disk Content Wipe
blocks Disk Structure Wipe
blocks Data Manipulation
blocks Stored Data Manipulation
blocks Runtime Data Manipulation
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to Detect
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks Loss of Critical Knowledge / Capability
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Civil or Political Unrest
blocks Hazardous Materials Emergencies
blocks Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Weapons
blocks Physical Crime
blocks Terrorism & Armed Attacks
blocks Utility Service Disruption
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Hazardous / Degraded Operational Environment
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
blocks BCM-01.02B
blocks BCM-03.01B
blocks BCM-04.02B
is blocked by BCD-11 Contingency Plan Root Cause Analysis (RCA) & Lessons Learned – Assessment Procedure
blocks CP-04 Contingency Plan Testing
blocks CP-04 [L] Contingency Plan Testing
blocks CP-04 [M] Contingency Plan Testing
blocks CP-04 [H] Contingency Plan Testing
blocks ID.IM-02 Improvements are identified from security tests and exercises, including those done in coordination with suppliers and relevant third parties
blocks ID.IM-03 Improvements are identified from execution of operational processes, procedures, and activities
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "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.