+Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
---+Replay-Resistant Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
---+Phishing-Resistant Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
---+Out-of-Band (OOB) Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
---+Alternative Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
---+Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) For Network Access to Privileged Accounts
---+Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) For Network Access to Non-Privileged Accounts
---+Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) For Local Access to Privileged Accounts
|
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to enforce Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for:
(1) Remote network access;
(2) Third-party Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS); and/ or
(3) Non-console access to critical TAAS that store, transmit and/or process sensitive and/or regulated data.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
▪ TAAS are configured to use Multi-Fact or Authentication (MFA) to authenticate network access for privileged and non-privileged accounts.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 enforce Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for:
(1) Remote network access;
(2) Third-party Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS); and/or
(3) Non-console access to critical TAAS that store, transmit and/or process sensitive/regulated data.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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. Vue d’ensemble
| Intitulé |
Norme |
|
Replay-Resistant Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
|
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to enforce replay-resistant Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) through authenticators whose outputs cannot be reused, using:
(1) Nonces;
(2) One-time challenges;
(3) Time-synchronous values; and/or
(4) Channel binding.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Authenticator app TOTP (e.g., Microsoft Authenticator, Google Authenticator) rather than SMS where possible
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Authenticator app or push MFA (e.g., Microsoft Authenticator, Duo)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Okta (https://okta.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
∙ FIDO2 security keys for administrators (e.g., Yubico)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Okta (https://okta.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Conditional access policies enforcing replay-resistant methods
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise identity platform with authentication strength policies (e.g., Microsoft Entra, Okta, Ping Identity)
∙ FIDO2 / passkeys for workforce
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Legacy authentication protocols blocked
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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).
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.
|
|
Phishing-Resistant Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
|
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to enforce phishing-resistant Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) through authenticators that are cryptographically bound to the verifier's identity, preventing credential relay by an impersonating party.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Passkeys or security keys for administrator accounts (e.g., Yubico, Microsoft Entra passkeys)
∙ Number matching enabled on push MFA
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ FIDO2 security keys for administrators (e.g., Yubico)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) authentication strength policies
∙ Number matching on push MFA
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Okta (https://okta.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Phishing-resistant MFA required for privileged roles via conditional access
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise identity platform with phishing-resistant authentication strengths (e.g., Microsoft Entra, Okta, Ping Identity)
∙ FIDO2 / passkeys or PIV smart cards for privileged users
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise phishing-resistant MFA program (FIDO2/passkeys, PIV/CAC)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) / Okta (https://okta.com) with authentication strength enforcement
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Legacy and phishable factors disabled
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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).
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.
|
|
Out-of-Band (OOB) Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement Out-of-Band (OOB) Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for access to privileged and non-privileged accounts such that one of the factors is independently provided by a device separate from the system being accessed.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 implement Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for access to privileged and non-privileged accounts such that one of the factors is independently provided by a device separate from the system being accessed.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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.
|
|
Alternative Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to enable alternative Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) tokens when the primary MFA solution is not able to be used.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Document alternative MFA options (e.g., backup codes)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Policy for alternative MFA methods when primary MFA is unavailable
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal alternative MFA policy
∙ Approved alternative authentication methods
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise IAM with multiple MFA options
∙ Fallback authentication procedures
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise IAM platform (e.g., Okta, Microsoft Entra)
∙ Multiple MFA options
∙ Fallback authentication workflows
∙ Recovery procedures
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 enable alternative Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) tokens when the primary MFA solution is not able to be used.
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.
|
|
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) For Network Access to Privileged Accounts
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) to authenticate network access for privileged accounts.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) to authenticate network access for privileged accounts.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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.
|
|
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) For Network Access to Non-Privileged Accounts
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) to authenticate network access for non-privileged accounts.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) to authenticate network access for non-privileged accounts.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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.
|
|
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) For Local Access to Privileged Accounts
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) to authenticate local access for privileged accounts.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) to authenticate local access for privileged accounts.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
1.1 Références
1.2 Exigences identifiées
1.3 Réglementations associées
2. Exigences identifiées
Exigences
| Source |
Exigence |
3. Réglementations associées
Réglementations
| Source |
Réglementation |
|
EULAW
|
Article 21 Contrôle d’accès
Article 21
Dans le cadre de leur contrôle des droits de gestion des accès, les entités financières élaborent, documentent et mettent en œuvre une politique qui comporte l’ensemble des éléments suivants:
a)
l’attribution de droits d’accès aux actifs de TIC selon les principes du besoin d’en connaître, du besoin d’en disposer et du moindre privilège, y compris pour l’accès à distance et l’accès d’urgence;
b)
une séparation des tâches visant à empêcher un accès injustifié à des données critiques ou à empêcher l’attribution de combinaisons de droits d’accès susceptibles d’être utilisées pour contourner les contrôles;
c)
des dispositions sur la responsabilité des utilisateurs, en limitant, dans la mesure du possible, l’utilisation de comptes utilisateurs génériques ou partagés et en veillant à ce que les utilisateurs soient à tout moment identifiables pour les actions effectuées dans les systèmes de TIC;
d)
des dispositions sur les restrictions d’accès aux actifs de TIC, prévoyant des contrôles et des outils pour empêcher tout accès non autorisé;
e)
des procédures de gestion de comptes permettant d’accorder, de modifier ou de révoquer des droits d’accès pour les comptes d’utilisateurs et les comptes génériques, y compris les comptes génériques d’administrateur, comportant des dispositions relatives à tous les éléments suivants:
i)
l’attribution des rôles et des responsabilités pour l’octroi, le réexamen et la révocation des droits d’accès;
ii)
l’attribution d’accès privilégiés, d’urgence et d’administrateur uniquement sur la base du besoin d’en disposer ou au cas par cas pour tous les systèmes de TIC;
iii)
le retrait des droits d’accès sans retard injustifié à la fin de l’emploi ou lorsque l’accès n’est plus nécessaire;
iv)
la mise à jour des droits d’accès lorsque des modifications sont nécessaires et au moins une fois par an pour tous les systèmes de TIC autres que les systèmes de TIC qui soutiennent des fonctions critiques ou importantes et au moins tous les six mois pour les systèmes de TIC qui soutiennent des fonctions critiques ou importantes;
f)
des méthodes d’authentification, comprenant l’ensemble des éléments suivants:
i)
l’utilisation de méthodes d’authentification proportionnées à la classification établie conformément à l’article 8, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) 2022/2554 et au profil de risque global des actifs de TIC et tenant compte des pratiques de pointe;
ii)
l’utilisation de méthodes d’authentification forte conformément aux pratiques et techniques de pointe pour l’accès à distance au réseau de l’entité financière, pour les accès privilégiés, pour l’accès aux actifs de TIC soutenant des fonctions critiques ou importantes ou aux actifs de TIC accessibles au public;
g)
des mesures de contrôle de l’accès physique comprenant:
i)
l’identification et la journalisation des personnes physiques autorisées à accéder aux locaux, aux centres de données et aux zones sensibles désignées par l’entité financière où sont situés les actifs de TIC et les actifs informationnels;
ii)
l’octroi de droits d’accès physique aux actifs de TIC critiques uniquement aux personnes autorisées, conformément aux principes du besoin d’en connaître et du moindre privilège, et au cas par cas;
iii)
le suivi de l’accès physique aux locaux, aux centres de données et aux zones sensibles désignées par l’entité financière où sont situés les actifs de TIC, les actifs informationnels ou les deux types d’actifs;
iv)
le réexamen des droits d’accès physique afin de veiller à ce que les droits d’accès inutiles soient rapidement révoqués.
Aux fins du point e) i), les entités financières définissent la durée de conservation en prenant en considération les objectifs en matière de sécurité des activités et de l’information, les raisons de l’enregistrement de l’événement dans les journaux et les résultats de l’évaluation du risque lié aux TIC.
Aux fins du point e) ii), les entités financières utilisent, dans la mesure du possible, des comptes spécifiques pour l’exécution de tâches administratives relatives aux systèmes de TIC. Lorsque cela est possible et approprié, les entités financières déploient des solutions automatisées pour la gestion des accès privilégiés.
Aux fins du point g) i), l’identification et la journalisation sont proportionnées à l’importance des locaux, des centres de données et des zones sensibles désignées et à la criticité des opérations ou des systèmes de TIC qui y sont situés.
Aux fins du point g) iii), le suivi est proportionné à la classification établie conformément à l’article 8, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) 2022/2554 et à la criticité de la zone accessible.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 33 Contrôle d’accès
Article 33
Les entités financières visées à l’article 16, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) 2022/2554 élaborent, documentent et mettent en œuvre des procédures de contrôle des accès logiques et physiques, et appliquent, contrôlent et réexaminent périodiquement ces procédures. Ces procédures comportent les éléments suivants de contrôle des accès logiques et physiques:
a)
les droits d’accès aux actifs informationnels, aux actifs de TIC et aux fonctions que ces actifs soutiennent, ainsi qu’aux sites critiques d’exploitation de l’entité financière, sont gérés selon les principes du besoin d’en connaître, du besoin d’en disposer et du droit d’accès minimal, y compris pour l’accès à distance et l’accès d’urgence;
b)
la responsabilité des utilisateurs, qui garantit que les utilisateurs peuvent être identifiés pour les actions effectuées dans les systèmes de TIC;
c)
les procédures de gestion des comptes permettant d’accorder, de modifier ou de révoquer des droits d’accès pour les comptes d’utilisateurs et les comptes génériques, y compris les comptes génériques d’administrateur;
d)
des méthodes d’authentification proportionnées à la classification visée à l’article 30, paragraphe 1, et au profil de risque global des actifs de TIC, et reposant sur les pratiques de pointe;
e)
les droits d’accès sont réexaminés périodiquement et retirés lorsqu’ils ne sont plus nécessaires.
Aux fins du point c), l’entité financière attribue des accès privilégiés, d’urgence et d’administrateur uniquement sur la base du besoin d’en disposer ou au cas par cas pour tous les systèmes de TIC. Ces accès sont journalisés conformément à l’article 34, premier alinéa, point f).
Aux fins du point d), les entités financières utilisent des méthodes d’authentification forte reposant sur les pratiques de pointe pour l’accès à distance à leurs réseaux, pour tout accès privilégié et pour l’accès aux actifs de TIC soutenant des fonctions critiques ou importantes qui sont accessibles au public.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 21 Mesures de gestion des risques en matière de cybersécurité
-
|
Tickets liés
- Secure Controls Framework -
"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.
|