+Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP)

Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP)

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation and monitoring of risk-based vulnerability management capabilities.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)

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

∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)

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

∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program

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

∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program

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

∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management 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

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-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 apply software patches through an informal process.
▪ Occasional vulnerability scanning is conducted on High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ Vulnerability scanning services may not be internal competencies and have to be outsourced.
▪ Penetration testing services may not be internal competencies and have to be outsourced.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel define the breadth and depth of coverage for vulnerability scanning that covers system components scanned and types of vulnerabilities that are checked for.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel maintain a structured process to apply software patches and other vulnerability remediation efforts.

Level 3 Well Defined

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning 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 VPM 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 and monitoring of vulnerability management controls.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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

Nõuded

3. Seotud regulatsioonid

Regulatsioonid
EULAW Artikkel 21 Küberturvalisuse riskijuhtimismeetmed
-
EULAW Artikkel 3 IKT-riski juhtimine

Artikkel 3

IKT-riski juhtimine

Finantssektori ettevõtjad töötavad välja ja dokumenteerivad IKT-riski juhtimise põhimõtted ja menetlused ning rakendavad neid ning need põhimõtted ja menetlused peavad sisaldama kõike järgmist:

a) 

märge määruse (EL) 2022/2554 artikli 6 lõike 8 punkti b kohaselt kindlaks määratud IKT-riski taluvuse taseme heakskiitmise kohta;

b) 

IKT-riski hindamise menetlus ja metoodika, mis hõlmavad

i) 

selliste nõrkuste ja ohtude kindlaksmääramist, mis mõjutavad või võivad mõjutada toetatavaid ärifunktsioone, IKT-süsteeme ja neid funktsioone toetavaid IKT-varasid;

ii) 

selliste kvantitatiivsete või kvalitatiivsete näitajate kindlaksmääramist, mille abil mõõta punktis i osutatud nõrkuste ja ohtude mõju ning tõenäosust;

c) 

IKT-riski käsitlemise meetmete kindlaksmääramise, rakendamise ja dokumenteerimise kord tuvastatud ja hinnatud IKT-riskide jaoks, sealhulgas selliste IKT-riski käsitlemise meetmete kindlaksmääramine, mis on vajalikud selleks, et viia IKT-risk allapoole punktis a osutatud riskitaluvustaset;

d) 

pärast punktis c osutatud IKT-riski käsitlemise meetmete rakendamist alles jäänud IKT-jääkriskide jaoks

i) 

sätted IKT-jääkriskide kindlakstegemise kohta;

ii) 

rollide ja vastutusvaldkondade määramine seoses järgmisega:

(1) 

finantssektori ettevõtja punktis a osutatud riskitaluvustaset ületavate IKT-jääkriskide aktsepteerimine,

(2) 

käesoleva punkti d alapunktis iv osutatud läbivaatamisprotsess;

iii) 

aktsepteeritud IKT-jääkriskide loetelu koostamine, sealhulgas nende aktsepteerimise põhjendamine;

iv) 

sätted, mis käsitlevad aktsepteeritud IKT-jääkriskide läbivaatamist vähemalt kord aastas, sealhulgas

1) 

IKT-jääkriskide muutuste kindlakstegemist,

2) 

olemasolevate riskimaandamismeetmete hindamist,

3) 

selle hindamist, kas põhjused, mis õigustasid IKT-jääkriskide aktsepteerimist, on läbivaatamise kuupäeval endiselt kehtivad ja kohaldatavad;

e) 

sätted, mille kohaselt seirata

i) 

muutusi IKT-riskide ja küberohtude maastikul;

ii) 

sisemisi ja väliseid nõrkusi ning ohte;

iii) 

finantssektori ettevõtja IKT-riski, et kiiresti avastada muutused, mis võivad mõjutada tema IKT-riski profiili;

f) 

sätted protsessi kohta, millega tagatakse finantssektori ettevõtja äristrateegiasse ja digitaalse tegevuskerksuse strateegiasse tehtud muudatuste arvesse võtmine.

Esimese lõigu punkti c kohaldamisel peab nimetatud punktis osutatud menetlus tagama, et

a) 

seiratakse rakendatavate IKT-riski käsitlemise meetmete tõhusust;

b) 

hinnatakse, kas finantssektori ettevõtjale kindlaks määratud riskitaluvustase on saavutatud;

c) 

hinnatakse, kas finantssektori ettevõtja on vajaduse korral astunud samme nende meetmete parandamiseks või täiustamiseks.
EULAW Artikkel 10 Nõrkuse- ja paigahaldus
-
EULAW Artikkel 10 Nõrkuse- ja paigahaldus
-
EULAW Artikkel 10 Nõrkuse- ja paigahaldus
-
EULAW Artikkel 10 Nõrkuse- ja paigahaldus
-
EULAW Artikkel 10 Nõrkuse- ja paigahaldus
-
EULAW Artikkel 31 IKT-riski juhtimine
-
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 9 Kaitse ja ennetus
-
EULAW Artikkel 25 IKT-vahendite ja -süsteemide testimine
-
EULAW Article 9 4

4.   As part of the ICT risk management framework referred to in Article 6(1), financial entities shall:

(a)

develop and document an information security policy defining rules to protect the availability, authenticity, integrity and confidentiality of data, information assets and ICT assets, including those of their customers, where applicable;

(b)

following a risk-based approach, establish a sound network and infrastructure management structure using appropriate techniques, methods and protocols that may include implementing automated mechanisms to isolate affected information assets in the event of cyber-attacks;

(c)

implement policies that limit the physical or logical access to information assets and ICT assets to what is required for legitimate and approved functions and activities only, and establish to that end a set of policies, procedures and controls that address access rights and ensure a sound administration thereof;

(d)

implement policies and protocols for strong authentication mechanisms, based on relevant standards and dedicated control systems, and protection measures of cryptographic keys whereby data is encrypted based on results of approved data classification and ICT risk assessment processes;

(e)

implement documented policies, procedures and controls for ICT change management, including changes to software, hardware, firmware components, systems or security parameters, that are based on a risk assessment approach and are an integral part of the financial entity’s overall change management process, in order to ensure that all changes to ICT systems are recorded, tested, assessed, approved, implemented and verified in a controlled manner;

(f)

have appropriate and comprehensive documented policies for patches and updates.

For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (b), financial entities shall design the network connection infrastructure in a way that allows it to be instantaneously severed or segmented in order to minimise and prevent contagion, especially for interconnected financial processes.

For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (e), the ICT change management process shall be approved by appropriate lines of management and shall have specific protocols in place.
EULAW Article 25 1

1.   The digital operational resilience testing programme referred to in Article 24 shall provide, in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 4(2), for the execution of appropriate tests, such as vulnerability assessments and scans, open source analyses, network security assessments, gap analyses, physical security reviews, questionnaires and scanning software solutions, source code reviews where feasible, scenario-based tests, compatibility testing, performance testing, end-to-end testing and penetration testing.
EULAW Article 25 2

2.   Central securities depositories and central counterparties shall perform vulnerability assessments before any deployment or redeployment of new or existing applications and infrastructure components, and ICT services supporting critical or important functions of the financial entity.
EULAW Article 25 3

3.   Microenterprises shall perform the tests referred to in paragraph 1 by combining a risk-based approach with a strategic planning of ICT testing, by duly considering the need to maintain a balanced approach between the scale of resources and the time to be allocated to the ICT testing provided for in this Article, on the one hand, and the urgency, type of risk, criticality of information assets and of services provided, as well as any other relevant factor, including the financial entity’s ability to take calculated risks, on the other hand.

Lingitud teemad

Lingid
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Process
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks 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 = 09
is related to Govern
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks OT Safety / Process Availability Failure
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 Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Adversarial Artificial Intelligence (AI) Attack
blocks Operational Technology (OT) / Industrial Control System (ICS) Attack
blocks AM-05.01B
blocks OPS-18.01B
blocks OPS-23.01B
blocks PSS-01.02B
blocks PSS-03.01B
is blocked by VPM-02 Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP) – Assessment Procedure
blocks SI-02 Flaw Remediation
blocks SI-03 Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-02 [L] Flaw Remediation
blocks SI-03 [L] Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-02 [M] Flaw Remediation
blocks SI-03 [M] Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-02 [H] Flaw Remediation
blocks SI-03 [H] Malicious Code Protection
blocks 03.11.02 Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning
blocks 03.14.01 Flaw Remediation
blocks ID.RA-01 Vulnerabilities in assets are identified, validated, and recorded
blocks ID.RA-08 Processes for receiving, analyzing, and responding to vulnerability disclosures are established
blocks PR.PS-02 Software is maintained, replaced, and removed commensurate with risk
  • 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.