+Endpoint File Integrity Monitoring (FIM)
---+Endpoint Integrity Checks
---+Automated Notifications of Integrity Violations
---+Automated Response to Integrity Violations
---+Boot Process Integrity
---+Protection of Boot Firmware

Endpoint File Integrity Monitoring (FIM)

Description

Mechanisms exist to utilize File Integrity Monitor (FIM), or similar technologies, to detect and report on unauthorized changes to selected files and configuration settings.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ File Integrity Monitor (FIM)
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)

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

∙ File Integrity Monitor (FIM)
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)

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

∙ File Integrity Monitor (FIM)
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
∙ CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak)
∙ Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.com)

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

∙ File Integrity Monitor (FIM)
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
∙ CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak)
∙ Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.com)

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

∙ File Integrity Monitor (FIM)
∙ ManageEngine Endpoint Central (https://manageengine.com)
∙ CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak)
∙ Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.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

Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Endpoint security management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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

Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management solution).
▪ 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 END 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 utilize File Integrity Monitor (FIM), or similar technologies, to detect and report on unauthorized changes to selected files and configuration settings.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Endpoint Security (END) 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

Endpoint Security (END) 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. Ülevaade

Endpoint Integrity Checks

Description

Mechanisms exist to validate configurations through integrity checking of software and firmware.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ File Integrity Monitor (FIM)

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

∙ File Integrity Monitor (FIM)

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

∙ CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak)
∙ Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.com)
∙ File Integrity Monitor (FIM)

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

∙ CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak)
∙ Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.com)
∙ File Integrity Monitor (FIM)

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

∙ CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak)
∙ Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.com)
∙ File Integrity Monitor (FIM)

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

Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Endpoint security management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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

Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management solution).
▪ 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 END 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 validate configurations through integrity checking of software and firmware.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Endpoint Security (END) 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

Endpoint Security (END) 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.
Automated Notifications of Integrity Violations

Description

Automated mechanisms exist to alert incident response personnel upon discovering discrepancies during integrity verification.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Antivirus/antimalware software
∙ Keep OS updated

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

∙ Endpoint protection platform (e.g., Windows Defender)
∙ Patch management

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

∙ EDR solution (e.g., CrowdStrike Falcon Go)
∙ Centralized endpoint management

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

∙ Enterprise EDR/EPP (e.g., CrowdStrike, SentinelOne)
∙ MDM/UEM (e.g., Microsoft Intune)

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

∙ Enterprise EDR/XDR platform (e.g., CrowdStrike, SentinelOne)
∙ UEM (e.g., Microsoft Intune, JAMF)
∙ Zero-trust endpoint controls

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

Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management solution).
▪ 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 END 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 automatically alert incident response personnel upon discovering discrepancies during integrity verification.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Endpoint Security (END) 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

Endpoint Security (END) 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.
Automated Response to Integrity Violations

Description

Automated mechanisms exist to implement remediation actions when integrity violations are discovered.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Antivirus/antimalware software
∙ Keep OS updated

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

∙ Endpoint protection platform (e.g., Windows Defender)
∙ Patch management

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

∙ EDR solution (e.g., CrowdStrike Falcon Go)
∙ Centralized endpoint management

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

∙ Enterprise EDR/EPP (e.g., CrowdStrike, SentinelOne)
∙ MDM/UEM (e.g., Microsoft Intune)

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

∙ Enterprise EDR/XDR platform (e.g., CrowdStrike, SentinelOne)
∙ UEM (e.g., Microsoft Intune, JAMF)
∙ Zero-trust endpoint controls

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

Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management solution).
▪ 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 END 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 automatically implement remediation actions when integrity violations are discovered.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Endpoint Security (END) 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

Endpoint Security (END) 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.
Boot Process Integrity

Description

Automated mechanisms exist to verify the integrity of the boot process of systems.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ UEFI Secure Boot

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

∙ UEFI Secure Boot

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

∙ UEFI Secure Boot

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

∙ UEFI Secure Boot

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

∙ UEFI Secure Boot

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

Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management solution).
▪ 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 END 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 automatically verify the integrity of the boot process of systems.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Endpoint Security (END) 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

Endpoint Security (END) 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.
Protection of Boot Firmware

Description

Automated mechanisms exist to protect the integrity of boot firmware in systems.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ UEFI Secure Boot

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

∙ UEFI Secure Boot

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

∙ UEFI Secure Boot

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

∙ UEFI Secure Boot

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

∙ UEFI Secure Boot

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

Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Endpoint security management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.

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

Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management solution).
▪ 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 END 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 automatically protect the integrity of boot firmware in systems.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Endpoint Security (END) 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

Endpoint Security (END) 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.

1.1 Viited

1.2 Tuvastatud nõuded

1.3 Seotud regulatsioonid

2. Tuvastatud nõuded

Nõuded

3. Seotud regulatsioonid

Regulatsioonid

Lingitud teemad

Lingid
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 04
is related to Technology
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Loss of Accountability / Attribution
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Unauthorized Privilege Elevation
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets
blocks Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
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 Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Harm from Illegal, Abusive or Unsafe Content / Conduct
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
is related to relative Control Weighting = 08
blocks OS Credential Dumping
blocks NTDS
blocks Traffic Duplication
blocks Obfuscated Files or Information
blocks Software Packing
blocks Dynamic API Resolution
blocks Stripped Payloads
blocks Embedded Payloads
blocks Masquerading
blocks Invalid Code Signature
blocks Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location
blocks Boot or Logon Initialization Scripts
blocks Login Hook
blocks Network Logon Script
blocks RC Scripts
blocks Startup Items
blocks Network Sniffing
blocks Windows Management Instrumentation
blocks Systemd Timers
blocks GUI Input Capture
blocks Command and Scripting Interpreter
blocks PowerShell
blocks AppleScript
blocks Windows Command Shell
blocks Unix Shell
blocks Visual Basic
blocks Python
blocks JavaScript
blocks Network Device CLI
blocks AutoHotKey & AutoIT
blocks Lua
blocks Exploitation for Privilege Escalation
blocks Indicator Removal
blocks Clear Command History
blocks Clear Network Connection History and Configurations
blocks Clear Mailbox Data
blocks Clear Persistence
blocks Relocate Malware
blocks Software Deployment Tools
blocks Taint Shared Content
blocks Additional Cloud Credentials
blocks Additional Email Delegate Permissions
blocks Additional Cloud Roles
blocks Modify Registry
blocks Email Collection
blocks Local Email Collection
blocks Remote Email Collection
blocks Email Forwarding Rule
blocks Automated Collection
blocks Trusted Developer Utilities Proxy Execution
blocks ClickOnce
blocks Shared Modules
blocks External Remote Services
blocks Create Account
blocks Local Account
blocks Domain Account
blocks Cloud Account
blocks Software Extensions
blocks Browser Session Hijacking
blocks Drive-by Compromise
blocks Exploit Public-Facing Application
blocks Supply Chain Compromise
blocks Compromise Software Dependencies and Development Tools
blocks Compromise Hardware Supply Chain
blocks Exploitation for Client Execution
blocks User Execution
blocks Malicious File
blocks Malicious Image
blocks Exploitation of Remote Services
blocks Exploitation for Stealth
blocks Exploitation for Credential Access
blocks Data from Information Repositories
blocks Confluence
blocks Sharepoint
blocks Customer Relationship Management Software
blocks Messaging Applications
blocks System Script Proxy Execution
blocks PubPrn
blocks SyncAppvPublishingServer
blocks System Binary Proxy Execution
blocks Compiled HTML File
blocks Control Panel
blocks CMSTP
blocks InstallUtil
blocks Mshta
blocks Odbcconf
blocks Regsvcs/Regasm
blocks Regsvr32
blocks Rundll32
blocks Verclsid
blocks Mavinject
blocks MMC
blocks Electron Applications
blocks Remote Access Tools
blocks XSL Script Processing
blocks Template Injection
blocks File and Directory Permissions Modification
blocks Windows Permissions
blocks Linux and Mac Permissions
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 Firmware Corruption
blocks Server Software Component
blocks SQL Stored Procedures
blocks Transport Agent
blocks IIS Components
blocks Implant Internal Image
blocks Data from Cloud Storage
blocks Pre-OS Boot
blocks System Firmware
blocks Bootkit
blocks ROMMONkit
blocks TFTP Boot
blocks Create or Modify System Process
blocks Systemd Service
blocks Event Triggered Execution
blocks Screensaver
blocks Unix Shell Configuration Modification
blocks LC_LOAD_DYLIB Addition
blocks Accessibility Features
blocks AppCert DLLs
blocks AppInit DLLs
blocks PowerShell Profile
blocks Authentication Package
blocks Time Providers
blocks Winlogon Helper DLL
blocks Security Support Provider
blocks Kernel Modules and Extensions
blocks LSASS Driver
blocks XDG Autostart Entries
blocks Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism
blocks Elevated Execution with Prompt
blocks TCC Manipulation
blocks Application Access Token
blocks Web Session Cookie
blocks Unsecured Credentials
blocks Private Keys
blocks Subvert Trust Controls
blocks Gatekeeper Bypass
blocks SIP and Trust Provider Hijacking
blocks Mark-of-the-Web Bypass
blocks Code Signing Policy Modification
blocks Compromise Host Software Binary
blocks Modify Authentication Process
blocks Domain Controller Authentication
blocks Pluggable Authentication Modules
blocks Network Device Authentication
blocks Network Provider DLL
blocks Conditional Access Policies
blocks Adversary-in-the-Middle
blocks ARP Cache Poisoning
blocks Evil Twin
blocks Steal or Forge Kerberos Tickets
blocks Silver Ticket
blocks Kerberoasting
blocks AS-REP Roasting
blocks Ccache Files
blocks Disk Wipe
blocks Disk Content Wipe
blocks Disk Structure Wipe
blocks Hidden Window
blocks NTFS File Attributes
blocks Run Virtual Instance
blocks Email Hiding Rules
blocks Resource Forking
blocks Process Argument Spoofing
blocks Data Manipulation
blocks Stored Data Manipulation
blocks Transmitted Data Manipulation
blocks Runtime Data Manipulation
blocks System Services
blocks Service Execution
blocks Hijack Execution Flow
blocks DLL
blocks Dylib Hijacking
blocks Dynamic Linker Hijacking
blocks Path Interception by PATH Environment Variable
blocks Path Interception by Search Order Hijacking
blocks Path Interception by Unquoted Path
blocks COR_PROFILER
blocks KernelCallbackTable
blocks AppDomainManager
blocks Network Boundary Bridging
blocks Network Address Translation Traversal
blocks Modify System Image
blocks Patch System Image
blocks Downgrade System Image
blocks Data from Configuration Repository
blocks SNMP (MIB Dump)
blocks Network Device Configuration Dump
blocks Container Administration Command
blocks Escape to Host
blocks Plist File Modification
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Authenticity / Provenance
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 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 Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Products
blocks Product Defect / Design Failure
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
blocks Cryptographic Compromise / Cryptanalytic Capability Advancement
blocks PSS-11.01AC
blocks PSS-11.02AC
is blocked by END-11 Endpoint File Integrity Monitoring (FIM) – Assessment Procedure
blocks SI-07 Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity
blocks SI-07 [M] Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity
blocks SI-07 [H] Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity
blocks DE.CM-09 Computing hardware and software, runtime environments, and their data are monitored to find potentially adverse events
  • 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.