+Continuous Monitoring
|
Continuous Monitoring
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of enterprise-wide monitoring controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Centralized event logging
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
∙ Cloud-native SIEM (e.g., Microsoft Sentinel free tier, Elastic SIEM free)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Centralized event logging
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
∙ Cloud SIEM (e.g., Microsoft Sentinel, Elastic SIEM, Sumo Logic)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Centralized event logging
∙ Security Incident Event Management (SIEM) (e.g., Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM QRadar)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
∙ Security Operations Center (SOC)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Centralized event logging
∙ Security Incident Event Management (SIEM) (e.g., Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM QRadar)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
∙ Security Operations Center (SOC) with 24/7 coverage
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SIEM platform (e.g., Splunk Enterprise Security, IBM QRadar, Microsoft Sentinel)
∙ 24/7 Security Operations Center (SOC)
∙ Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR)
∙ Threat intelligence integration
∙ Managed Detection & Response (MDR) or in-house SOC
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
Continuous Monitoring (MON) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with MON domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Event monitoring-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Monitoring is primarily reactive in nature, focused on identifying incidents that occurred.
▪ Event log reviews primarily rely on manual processes to identify anomalous behaviors.
▪ Generating event logs and the review of those event logs is narrowly-focused to business-critical Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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 MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with MON 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 MON domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Continuous monitoring-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Continuous monitoring 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
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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 MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel use a structured process via Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) to review and analyze logs.
▪ A Security Operations Center (SOC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain MON domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of continuous monitoring operations (e.g., Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)).
▪ 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 MON 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 security event logging to contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate the implementation of enterprise-wide monitoring controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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. Ülevaade
1.1 Viited
1.2 Tuvastatud nõuded
1.3 Seotud regulatsioonid
2. Tuvastatud nõuded
3. Seotud regulatsioonid
Regulatsioonid
| Allikas |
Regulatsioon |
|
EULAW
|
Artikkel 12 Logimine
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikkel 12 Logimine
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikkel 23 Anomaalse tegevuse avastamine ning IKT intsidentide avastamise ja neile reageerimise kriteeriumid
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikkel 23 Anomaalse tegevuse avastamine ning IKT intsidentide avastamise ja neile reageerimise kriteeriumid
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikkel 23 Anomaalse tegevuse avastamine ning IKT intsidentide avastamise ja neile reageerimise kriteeriumid
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikkel 34 IKT-toimingute turvalisus
Artikkel 34
IKT-toimingute turvalisus
Määruse (EL) 2022/2554 artikli 16 lõikes 1 osutatud finantssektori ettevõtjad teevad oma süsteemide, protokollide ja vahendite rakendamise raames kõigi IKT-varade puhul järgmist:
a)
seiravad ja haldavad kõigi IKT-varade olelusringi;
b)
vajaduse korral kontrollivad, kas nende IKT-varasid toetavad kolmandast isikust IKT-teenuste osutajad;
c)
teevad kindlaks oma IKT-varade ja -meetmete vajamineva võimsuse, mis võimaldab säilitada ja muuta paremaks IKT-süsteemide kättesaadavuse ja tõhususe ning ennetada IKT võimsuse puudujääki;
d)
teevad IKT-varade nõrkuse automaatse skaneerimise ja hindamise, mis on vastavuses artikli 30 lõikes 1 osutatud liigitusega ja IKT-vara üldise riskiprofiiliga, ning võtavad kasutusele paigad tuvastatud nõrkuste kõrvaldamiseks;
e)
juhivad aegunud, toetamata või IKT pärandvaraga seotud riske;
f)
logivad sündmusi, mis on seotud loogilise ja füüsilise pääsu reguleerimisega, IKT-toimingutega, sealhulgas süsteemi- ja võrguliiklusega, ning IKT-muudatuste juhtimisega;
g)
määravad kindlaks meetmed, millega seirata ja analüüsida kriitilise tähtsusega või oluliste IKT-toimingutega seotud anomaalset tegevust ja käitumist käsitlevat teavet;
h)
rakendavad meetmeid, millega seirata küberohte käsitlevat asja- ja ajakohast teavet;
i)
rakendavad meetmeid, millega teha kindlaks võimalikud teabelekked, ründekoodid ja muud turvaohud, samuti tarkvara ja riistvara üldteada nõrkused ning kontrollida vastavaid turvauuendeid.
Punkti f kohaldamisel viivad finantssektori ettevõtjad logide üksikasjalikkuse vastavusse logide otstarbega ja neid logisid tootva IKT-vara kasutamisega.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikkel 34 IKT-toimingute turvalisus
Artikkel 34
IKT-toimingute turvalisus
Määruse (EL) 2022/2554 artikli 16 lõikes 1 osutatud finantssektori ettevõtjad teevad oma süsteemide, protokollide ja vahendite rakendamise raames kõigi IKT-varade puhul järgmist:
a)
seiravad ja haldavad kõigi IKT-varade olelusringi;
b)
vajaduse korral kontrollivad, kas nende IKT-varasid toetavad kolmandast isikust IKT-teenuste osutajad;
c)
teevad kindlaks oma IKT-varade ja -meetmete vajamineva võimsuse, mis võimaldab säilitada ja muuta paremaks IKT-süsteemide kättesaadavuse ja tõhususe ning ennetada IKT võimsuse puudujääki;
d)
teevad IKT-varade nõrkuse automaatse skaneerimise ja hindamise, mis on vastavuses artikli 30 lõikes 1 osutatud liigitusega ja IKT-vara üldise riskiprofiiliga, ning võtavad kasutusele paigad tuvastatud nõrkuste kõrvaldamiseks;
e)
juhivad aegunud, toetamata või IKT pärandvaraga seotud riske;
f)
logivad sündmusi, mis on seotud loogilise ja füüsilise pääsu reguleerimisega, IKT-toimingutega, sealhulgas süsteemi- ja võrguliiklusega, ning IKT-muudatuste juhtimisega;
g)
määravad kindlaks meetmed, millega seirata ja analüüsida kriitilise tähtsusega või oluliste IKT-toimingutega seotud anomaalset tegevust ja käitumist käsitlevat teavet;
h)
rakendavad meetmeid, millega seirata küberohte käsitlevat asja- ja ajakohast teavet;
i)
rakendavad meetmeid, millega teha kindlaks võimalikud teabelekked, ründekoodid ja muud turvaohud, samuti tarkvara ja riistvara üldteada nõrkused ning kontrollida vastavaid turvauuendeid.
Punkti f kohaldamisel viivad finantssektori ettevõtjad logide üksikasjalikkuse vastavusse logide otstarbega ja neid logisid tootva IKT-vara kasutamisega.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikkel 10 Avastamine
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 10 3
3. Financial entities shall devote sufficient resources and capabilities to monitor user activity, the occurrence of ICT anomalies and ICT-related incidents, in particular cyber-attacks.
|
Lingitud teemad
- 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.
|