+Contingency Plan Root Cause Analysis (RCA) & Lessons Learned

Contingency Plan Root Cause Analysis (RCA) & Lessons Learned

Description

Mechanisms exist to conduct a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and "lessons learned" activity every time the contingency plan is activated.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

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

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

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

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

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

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

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

∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) (After Action Review (AAR), lessons learned, etc.)

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

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power).

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ 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 BCD 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 conduct a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and "lessons learned" activity every time the contingency plan is activated.

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

1.1 Viittaukset

1.2 Tunnistetut vaatimukset

1.3 Liittyvät säädökset

2. Tunnistetut vaatimukset

Vaatimukset
Lähde Vaatimus

3. Liittyvät säädökset

Säädökset
Lähde Sääntely
EULAW 12 artikla 1

1.   Jotta TVT-järjestelmät ja data voidaan palauttaa niin, että palvelukatkos jää mahdollisimman lyhyeksi ja keskeytymisten ja menetysten määrää rajoitetaan, finanssiyhteisöjen on osana TVT-riskinhallintajärjestelmäänsä laadittava ja dokumentoitava:

a)

varmuuskopiointikäytännöt ja -menettelyt, joissa määritellään varmuuskopioitava data ja varmuuskopioinnin vähimmäistiheys tietojen kriittisyyden tai datan luottamuksellisuustason mukaan;

b)

palautus- ja toipumismenettelyt ja -menetelmät.

EULAW 12 artikla 2

2.   Finanssiyhteisöjen on perustettava varmuuskopiointijärjestelmiä, jotka voidaan aktivoida varmuuskopiointikäytäntöjen ja -menettelyjen sekä palautus- ja toipumismenettelyjen ja -menetelmien mukaisesti. Varmuuskopiointijärjestelmien aktivointi ei saa vaarantaa verkko- ja tietojärjestelmien turvallisuutta eikä datan saatavuutta, aitoutta, eheyttä tai luottamuksellisuutta. Varmuuskopiointimenettelyjen sekä palautus- ja toipumismenettelyjen ja -menetelmien testaus on suoritettava säännöllisin väliajoin.

EULAW 21 artikla Kyberturvallisuusriskien hallintatoimenpiteet
-
EULAW 25 artikla TVT-liiketoiminnan jatkuvuutta koskevien suunnitelmien testaus
-
EULAW 26 artikla TVT-reagointi- ja palautumissuunnitelmat
-
EULAW 39 artikla TVT-liiketoiminnan jatkuvuutta koskevan suunnitelman osatekijät
-
EULAW 40 artikla Liiketoiminnan jatkuvuutta koskevien suunnitelmien testaus
-
EULAW 13 artikla Oppiminen ja kehitys
-
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.

Linkitetyt tehtävät

Linkit
Linkin tyyppi Tehtävä
is related to Quarterly
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Technology
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 Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Business / Service Interruption
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 Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks OS Credential Dumping
blocks NTDS
blocks Data from Local System
blocks Data from Removable Media
blocks Indicator Removal
blocks Clear Mailbox Data
blocks Automated Collection
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 Disk Wipe
blocks Disk Content Wipe
blocks Disk Structure Wipe
blocks Data Manipulation
blocks Stored Data Manipulation
blocks Runtime Data Manipulation
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to Detect
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks Loss of Critical Knowledge / Capability
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 Civil or Political Unrest
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 Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Hazardous / Degraded Operational Environment
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
blocks BCM-01.02B
blocks BCM-03.01B
blocks BCM-04.02B
is blocked by BCD-11 Contingency Plan Root Cause Analysis (RCA) & Lessons Learned – Assessment Procedure
blocks CP-04 Contingency Plan Testing
blocks CP-04 [L] Contingency Plan Testing
blocks CP-04 [M] Contingency Plan Testing
blocks CP-04 [H] Contingency Plan Testing
blocks ID.IM-02 Improvements are identified from security tests and exercises, including those done in coordination with suppliers and relevant third parties
blocks ID.IM-03 Improvements are identified from execution of operational processes, procedures, and activities
  • 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.