+Access To Critical Systems
---+Lockable Physical Casings
|
Access To Critical Systems
Description
Physical access control mechanisms exist to enforce physical access to critical systems or sensitive and/or regulated data, in addition to the physical access controls for the facility.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Locked server closet/cabinet separate from general office access
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Locked server room with access limited to named IT staff
∙ Separate key or badge level for critical systems
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Badge-controlled server room with dedicated access group
∙ Locked racks for critical systems
∙ Access log review
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data center / server room access restricted by PACS zone
∙ Locked cabinets or cages for critical and regulated systems
∙ Video surveillance of critical areas
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise data center access control with multi-factor entry (badge + biometric/PIN)
∙ Caged or locked racks for critical systems
∙ Continuous access log monitoring
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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES 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 PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Where applicable, physical security controls and technologies are configured to generate a log entry for each access attempt through controlled ingress and egress points.
Level 3 Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES 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 PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A facilities 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 physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access).
▪ 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 PES 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 physical security capability exists to enforce physical access to critical systems or sensitive/regulated data, in addition to the physical access controls for the facility.
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. Ülevaade
| Pealkiri |
Standard |
|
Lockable Physical Casings
|
Description
Physical access control mechanisms exist to protect system components from unauthorized physical access (e.g., lockable physical casings).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Lockable cabinet for network/server equipment
∙ Kensington-style locks for shared devices
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Lockable server racks and network cabinets
∙ Tamper-evident seals on critical devices
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Locked racks in server room with key control
∙ Chassis locks and tamper-evident seals
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Locked cabinets/cages for all critical infrastructure
∙ Chassis intrusion detection enabled
∙ Tamper-evident seals with periodic inspection
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise rack-level access control with electronic locks and audit logs
∙ Chassis intrusion detection integrated with SIEM
∙ Tamper inspection program
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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES 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 PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES 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 PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A facilities 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 physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access).
▪ 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 PES 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 physical security capability exists to protect system components from unauthorized physical access (e.g., lockable physical casings).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 Viited
1.2 Tuvastatud nõuded
1.3 Seotud regulatsioonid
2. Tuvastatud nõuded
3. Seotud regulatsioonid
Regulatsioonid
| Allikas |
Regulatsioon |
|
EULAW
|
Artikkel 21 Pääsu reguleerimine
Artikkel 21
Finantssektori ettevõtjad töötavad pääsuhalduse õiguste reguleerimise osana välja ja dokumenteerivad põhimõtted, mis peavad hõlmama kõike järgmist, ning rakendavad neid:
a)
IKT-varadele juurdepääsu õiguste, sealhulgas kaugpääsu ja hädaolukorras pääsu õiguse andmine, lähtudes teadmisvajadusest, kasutusvajadusest ja minimaalõiguste printsiibist;
b)
ülesannete lahusus, et ära hoida põhjendamatu juurdepääs kriitilise tähtsusega andmetele või sellise pääsuõiguste kombinatsiooni tekkimine, mida võidakse kasutada kontrollist kõrvalehoidmiseks;
c)
säte kasutaja vastutuse kohta, millega piiratakse nii palju kui võimalik üldkontode ja jagatud kasutajakontode kasutamist ning tagatakse, et kasutajad on IKT-süsteemides tehtavate toimingute puhul alati tuvastatavad;
d)
säte IKT-varadele juurdepääsu piiramise kohta, millega nähakse ette kontrollid ja vahendid loata juurdepääsu ärahoidmiseks;
e)
kontohaldusmenetlused kasutaja- ja üldkontode, kaasa arvatud üldiste administraatorikontode pääsuõiguste andmiseks, muutmiseks või tühistamiseks, sealhulgas sätted kõige järgmise kohta:
i)
rollide ja vastutusvaldkondade määramine pääsuõiguste andmiseks, läbivaatamiseks ja tühistamiseks,
ii)
kõikidele IKT-süsteemidele eelis-, hädaolukorras või administraatori pääsu andmine kasutusvajaduse korral või vajaduspõhiselt,
iii)
pääsuõiguste tühistamine põhjendamatu viivituseta, kui töösuhe lõpeb või kui pääs ei ole enam vajalik,
iv)
pääsuõiguste ajakohastamine, kui on vaja teha muudatusi, ning kriitilise tähtsusega või olulisi funktsioone toetavate IKT-süsteemide puhul vähemalt kord kuue kuu jooksul ning kõigi muude IKT-süsteemide puhul vähemalt kord aastas;
f)
autentimismeetodid, sealhulgas kõik järgmine:
i)
autentimismeetodite kasutamine viisil, mis on vastavuses määruse (EL) 2022/2554 artikli 8 lõike 1 kohase liigitusega ja IKT-varade üldise riskiprofiiliga, ning võttes arvesse juhtivaid tavasid,
ii)
tugevate autentimismeetodite kasutamine finantssektori ettevõtja võrgule kaugpääsu, eelispääsu, kriitilise tähtsusega või olulisi funktsioone toetavatele IKT-varadele juurdepääsu või üldsusele kättesaadavatele IKT-varadele juurdepääsu andmisel kooskõlas juhtivate tavade ja meetoditega;
g)
füüsilise pääsu reguleerimise meetmed, sealhulgas
i)
selliste füüsiliste isikute identifitseerimine ja nende toimingute logimine, kellel on õigus siseneda finantssektori ettevõtja ruumidesse ja andmekeskustesse ning finantssektori ettevõtja kindlaks määratud tundlikele aladele, kus asuvad IKT- ja teabevarad,
ii)
kriitilise tähtsusega IKT-varade puhul füüsilise pääsu õiguse andmine üksnes volitatud isikutele kooskõlas teadmisvajaduse ja minimaalõiguste printsiibiga ning vajaduspõhiselt,
iii)
finantssektori ettevõtja ruumidesse ja andmekeskustesse ning finantssektori ettevõtja kindlaks määratud tundlikele aladele, kus asuvad IKT- ja teabevarad, füüsilise pääsu seire,
iv)
füüsilise pääsu õiguste läbivaatamine, et tagada tarbetute pääsuõiguste viivitamatu tühistamine.
Punkti e alapunkti i kohaldamisel määravad finantssektori ettevõtjad kindlaks säilitamistähtaja, võttes arvesse äri- ja infoturbe eesmärke, sündmuse logis registreerimise põhjust ja IKT-riski hindamise tulemusi.
Punkti e alapunkti ii kohaldamisel kasutavad finantssektori ettevõtjad IKT-süsteemidega seotud haldusülesannete täitmiseks võimaluse korral spetsiaalseid kontosid. Kui see on teostatav ja asjakohane, võtavad finantssektori ettevõtjad eelispääsu haldamiseks kasutusele automatiseeritud lahendused.
Punkti g alapunkti i kohaldamisel peavad identifitseerimine ja logimine olema vastavuses ruumide, andmekeskuste ja kindlaksmääratud tundlike alade ning seal tehtavate toimingute või asuvate IKT-süsteemide kriitilise tähtsusega.
Punkti g alapunkti iii kohaldamisel peab seire olema vastavuses määruse (EL) 2022/2554 artikli 8 lõike 1 kohase liigitusega ja juurdepääsetava ala kriitilise tähtsusega.
|
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.
|