+Capacity & Performance Management

Capacity & Performance Management

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of capacity management controls to ensure optimal system performance to meet expected and anticipated future capacity requirements.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Manual resource monitoring
∙ ManageEngine OpManager (https://manageengine.com)

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

∙ Manual resource monitoring
∙ ManageEngine OpManager (https://manageengine.com)

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

∙ Manual resource monitoring
∙ ManageEngine OpManager (https://manageengine.com)
∙ Splunk (https://splunk.com)
∙ Solarwinds (https://solarwinds.com)

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

∙ ManageEngine OpManager (https://manageengine.com)
∙ Splunk (https://splunk.com)
∙ Solarwinds (https://solarwinds.com)

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

∙ Splunk (https://splunk.com)
∙ Solarwinds (https://solarwinds.com)

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

Capability & Performance Planning (CAP) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CAP domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Capability management-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 work with business stakeholders to identify growth requirements and add capacity accordingly.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Capability & Performance Planning (CAP) 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 CAP domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CAP 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 CAP domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Capability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Capability management 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

Capability & Performance Planning (CAP) 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 CAP 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 CAP 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 CAP 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 of capacity management controls to ensure optimal system performance to meet expected and anticipated future capacity requirements.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Capability & Performance Planning (CAP) 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

Capability & Performance Planning (CAP) 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. Resumen

1.1 Referencias

1.2 Requisitos identificados

1.3 Regulaciones relacionadas

2. Requisitos identificados

Requisitos

3. Regulaciones relacionadas

Regulaciones
EULAW Artículo 9 Gestión de la capacidad y el rendimiento
-
EULAW Artículo 9 Gestión de la capacidad y el rendimiento
-
EULAW Artículo 34 Seguridad de las operaciones de TIC

Artículo 34

Seguridad de las operaciones de TIC

Dentro de sus sistemas, protocolos y herramientas, y con respecto a todos los activos de TIC, las entidades financieras a que se refiere el artículo 16, apartado 1, del Reglamento (UE) 2022/2554:

a) 

harán un seguimiento del ciclo de vida de todos los activos de TIC y lo gestionarán;

b) 

harán un seguimiento, en su caso, de si los activos de TIC cuentan con el soporte de proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC;

c) 

determinarán los requisitos de capacidad de sus activos de TIC y las medidas para mantener y mejorar la disponibilidad y eficiencia de los sistemas de TIC y prevenir la escasez de capacidad de TIC antes de que se materialice;

d) 

llevarán a cabo exploraciones y evaluaciones automatizadas de vulnerabilidad de los activos de TIC, acordes con la clasificación de tales activos contemplada en el artículo 30, apartado 1, y con el perfil de riesgo general de cada activo de TIC, e implementarán parches para hacer frente a las vulnerabilidades detectadas;

e) 

gestionarán los riesgos relacionados con los activos de TIC obsoletos, sin soporte o heredados;

f) 

registrarán los acontecimientos relacionados con el control del acceso lógico y físico, las operaciones de TIC, incluidas las actividades de sistema y de tráfico de red, y la gestión de cambios en las TIC;

g) 

determinarán y aplicarán medidas para el seguimiento y el análisis de la información sobre actividades y comportamientos anómalos respecto de operaciones de TIC esenciales o importantes;

h) 

aplicarán medidas para el seguimiento de la información pertinente y actualizada sobre las ciberamenazas;

i) 

aplicarán medidas para la detección de posibles fugas de información, códigos maliciosos y otras amenazas para la seguridad, así como vulnerabilidades en el software y el hardware conocidas públicamente, y comprobarán las nuevas actualizaciones de seguridad correspondientes.

A efectos de la letra f), las entidades financieras adaptarán el grado de detalle de los registros a la finalidad y al uso del activo de TIC que los genere.

Incidencias vinculadas

Vínculos
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 08
is related to Technology
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
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 Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Resource Forking
is related to Process
is related to Govern
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
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 Malicious Cyber Activity
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 Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Products
blocks Hazardous / Degraded Operational Environment
blocks Manufacturing Capacity / Supply Disruption
blocks Product Defect / Design Failure
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Transportation / Logistics Disruption
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
blocks OPS-01.01B
blocks OPS-01.03B
blocks OPS-02.01B
is blocked by CAP-02 Capacity & Performance Management – Assessment Procedure
blocks SC-05 Denial-of-service Protection
blocks SC-05(03) Detection and Monitoring
blocks SC-05 [L] Denial-of-service Protection
blocks SC-05 [M] Denial-of-service Protection
blocks SC-05 [H] Denial-of-service Protection
blocks 03.13.12E Denial-of-Service Protection
blocks PR.IR-04 Adequate resource capacity to ensure availability is maintained
  • 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.