+Chain of Custody & Forensics
---+Licensed Forensic Investigators
|
Chain of Custody & Forensics
Description
Mechanisms exist to perform digital forensics and maintain the integrity of the chain of custody, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and industry-recognized secure practices.
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
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.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
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 perform digital forensics and maintain the integrity of the chain of custody, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and industry-recognized secure practices.
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. Yleiskatsaus
| Otsikko |
Standardi |
|
Licensed Forensic Investigators
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize licensed forensic investigators to perform data analysis for evidentiary purposes that may be used in legal proceedings or to prove wrongdoing.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-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 use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ For eDiscovery, IT and/or cybersecurity personnel manually identify and collect Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in order to respond to a request from a lawsuit or investigation.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ Incident responders are proficient on their specific IRP role(s) and responsibilities through recurring training events (e.g., annual rock drill).
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 licensed forensic investigators to perform data analysis for evidentiary purposes that may be used in legal proceedings or to prove wrongdoing.
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.
|
1.1 Viittaukset
1.2 Tunnistetut vaatimukset
1.3 Liittyvät säädökset
2. Tunnistetut vaatimukset
Vaatimukset
| Lähde |
Vaatimus |
3. Liittyvät säädökset
Säädökset
| Lähde |
Sääntely |
|
EULAW
|
13 artikla 2
2. Finanssiyhteisöjen on toteutettava sellainen TVT:hen liittyvien poikkeamien jälkitarkastelu sen jälkeen kun laajavaikutteinen TVT:hen liittyvä poikkeama aiheuttaa keskeytymisiä niiden ydintoiminnoissa, jossa analysoidaan keskeytymisen syyt ja määritetään tarvittavat TVT-toimien tai 11 artiklassa tarkoitettujen TVT-liiketoiminnan jatkuvuutta koskevien toimintaperiaatteiden parannukset.
Muiden kuin mikroyrityksiä olevien finanssiyhteisöjen on pyynnöstä ilmoitettava toimivaltaisille viranomaisille muutoksista, jotka on toteutettu ensimmäisessä alakohdassa tarkoitettujen TVT:hen liittyvien poikkeamien jälkiarviointien seurauksena.
Ensimmäisessä alakohdassa tarkoitettujen TVT:hen liittyvien poikkeamien jälkitarkastelussa on selvitettävä, noudatettiinko vakiintuneita menettelyjä ja olivatko toteutetut toimet tuloksellisia, muun muassa seuraavien seikkojen osalta:
|
a)
|
turvallisuusvaroituksiin reagoinnin ja TVT:hen liittyvien poikkeamien vaikutuksen ja vakavuuden määrittämisen nopeus;
|
|
b)
|
rikosteknisen analyysin laatu ja nopeus, jos tämä katsotaan aiheelliseksi;
|
|
c)
|
poikkeaman eskaloinnin tuloksellisuus finanssiyhteisössä;
|
|
d)
|
sisäisen ja ulkoisen viestinnän vaikuttavuus.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
13 artikla 3
3. Kokemukset, jotka on saatu 26 ja 27 artiklan mukaisesti toteutetusta digitaalisen häiriönsietokyvyn testauksesta sekä todellisista TVT:hen liittyvistä poikkeamista, erityisesti kyberhyökkäyksistä, sekä TVT-liiketoiminnan jatkuvuutta koskevien suunnitelmien ja TVT-reagointi- ja -toipumissuunnitelmien käynnistämisen yhteydessä kohdatut haasteet ja vastapuolten kanssa vaihdetut ja valvontatarkastusten yhteydessä arvioidut tiedot on asianmukaisesti ja jatkuvasti sisällytettävä TVT-riskinarviointiprosessiin. Kyseisten havaintojen perusteella on tehtävä asianmukaiset tarkastukset 6 artiklan 1 kohdassa tarkoitetun TVT-riskinhallintajärjestelmän asianomaisiin komponentteihin.
|
|
EULAW
|
23 artikla Raportointivelvoitteet
-
|
|
EULAW
|
22 artikla TVT:hen liittyvien poikkeamien hallinnan toimintaperiaatteet
22 artikla
TVT:hen liittyvien poikkeamien hallinnan toimintaperiaatteet
Finanssiyhteisöjen on osana mekanismeja, joilla havaitaan poikkeavaa toimintaa, mukaan lukien TVT-verkon suorituskykyyn liittyvät ongelmat ja TVT:hen liittyvät poikkeamat, laadittava, dokumentoitava ja otettava käyttöön TVT:hen liittyviä poikkeamia koskevat toimintaperiaatteet, joiden avulla niiden on
a)
dokumentoitava asetuksen (EU) 2022/2554 17 artiklassa tarkoitettu TVT:hen liittyvien poikkeamien hallintaprosessi;
b)
laadittava luettelo sisäisissä toiminnoissa ja ulkoisissa sidosryhmissä olevista yhteyspisteistä, jotka osallistuvat suoraan TVT-toimien turvallisuuteen, mukaan lukien
i)
kyberuhkien havaitsemiseen ja seurantaan;
ii)
poikkeavan toiminnan havaitsemiseen;
iii)
haavoittuvuuksien hallintaan;
c)
laadittava, toteutettava ja käytettävä teknisiä, organisatorisia ja operatiivisia mekanismeja, joilla tuetaan TVT:hen liittyvien poikkeamien hallintaprosessia, mukaan lukien mekanismit, joiden avulla voidaan nopeasti havaita poikkeava toiminta ja käyttäytyminen tämän asetuksen 23 artiklan mukaisesti;
▼C1
d)
säilytettävä komission delegoidun asetuksen (EU) 2024/1772 (
2
) 8 artiklan 2 kohdan ja unionin oikeuden nojalla mahdollisesti sovellettavien säilyttämisvaatimusten mukaisesti kaikki TVT:hen liittyviin poikkeamiin liittyvä näyttö tietyn ajan, joka ei saa olla pidempi kuin on tarpeen niihin tarkoituksiin, joita varten tiedot on kerätty, ja joka on oikeassa suhteessa asianomaisten liiketoimintojen, tukiprosessien sekä TVT- ja tieto-omaisuuden kriittisyyteen;
▼B
e)
laadittava ja otettava käyttöön mekanismit, joilla analysoidaan merkittäviä tai toistuvia TVT:hen liittyviä poikkeamia ja TVT:hen liittyvien poikkeamien lukumäärässä ja esiintymistiheydessä esiintyviä kaavoja.
Sovellettaessa d alakohtaa finanssiyhteisöjen on säilytettävä kyseisessä alakohdassa tarkoitettu näyttö tietoturvallisesti.
|
Linkitetyt tehtävät
- 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.
|