+Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks

Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks

Description

Cryptographic mechanisms exist to implement strong cryptography and security protocols to safeguard sensitive and/or regulated data during transmission over open, public networks.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Use HTTPS/TLS for all internet-facing communications

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

∙ TLS for all internet traffic
∙ No unencrypted protocols over public networks

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

∙ Encryption-in-transit standards
∙ TLS 1.2+ enforcement
∙ Certificate management

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

∙ Enterprise encryption-in-transit program
∙ TLS 1.3 enforcement
∙ Certificate lifecycle management

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

∙ Enterprise encryption governance program
∙ TLS 1.3+
∙ Certificate management platform (e.g., Venafi)
∙ Automated certificate monitoring

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

Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data are protected using a cryptographic mechanism to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN).
▪ Wireless access is protected via secure authentication and encryption.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD.
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data use a cryptographic mechanism to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN).

Level 3 Well Defined

Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator).
▪ 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 NET 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).
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
▪ An implemented and operational cryptographic capability exists to implement strong cryptography and security protocols to safeguard sensitive/regulated data during transmission over open, public networks.

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. Vue d’ensemble

1.1 Références

1.2 Exigences identifiées

1.3 Réglementations associées

2. Exigences identifiées

Exigences

3. Réglementations associées

Réglementations
EULAW Article 13 Gestion de la sécurité des réseaux

Article 13

Gestion de la sécurité des réseaux

Dans le cadre des garanties de sécurité des réseaux contre les intrusions et l’utilisation abusive de données, les entités financières élaborent, documentent et mettent en œuvre des politiques, des procédures, des protocoles et des outils de gestion de la sécurité des réseaux comprenant l’ensemble des éléments suivants:

a) 

la séparation et la segmentation des systèmes et réseaux de TIC, compte tenu:

i) 

de la criticité ou de l’importance de la fonction que soutiennent ces systèmes et réseaux de TIC;

ii) 

de la classification établie conformément à l’article 8, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) 2022/2554;

iii) 

du profil de risque global des actifs de TIC qui utilisent ces systèmes et réseaux de TIC;

b) 

la documentation de l’ensemble des connexions réseau et des flux de données de l’entité financière;

c) 

l’utilisation d’un réseau distinct et spécifique pour l’administration des actifs de TIC;

d) 

la définition et la mise en œuvre de contrôles d’accès au réseau afin de prévenir et de détecter les connexions au réseau de l’entité financière à partir de tout appareil ou système non autorisé, ou de tout point de terminaison ne répondant pas aux exigences de l’entité financière en matière de sécurité;

e) 

le chiffrement des connexions au réseau transitant par des réseaux d’entreprise, des réseaux publics, des réseaux nationaux, des réseaux tiers et des réseaux sans fil, pour les protocoles de communication utilisés, en tenant compte des résultats de la classification de données approuvée, des résultats de l’évaluation du risque lié aux TIC et du chiffrement des connexions au réseau prévu par l’article 6, paragraphe 2;

f) 

une conception du réseau conforme aux exigences en matière de sécurité des TIC définies par l’entité financière, tenant compte des pratiques de pointe afin de garantir la confidentialité, l’intégrité et la disponibilité du réseau;

g) 

la sécurisation du trafic entre les réseaux internes et l’internet et d’autres connexions externes;

h) 

la définition des rôles et responsabilités et des étapes de la spécification, de la mise en œuvre, de l’approbation, de la modification et du réexamen des règles de pare-feu et des filtres de connexion;

i) 

la réalisation d’examens de l’architecture du réseau et de la conception de la sécurité du réseau une fois par an, et périodiquement pour les microentreprises, afin de détecter les vulnérabilités potentielles;

j) 

des mesures visant à isoler temporairement, si nécessaire, les sous-réseaux et les composants et dispositifs de réseau;

k) 

la mise en œuvre d’une configuration sécurisée de référence incluant tous les composants du réseau, et le renforcement du réseau et des dispositifs de réseau conformément aux éventuelles instructions du vendeur, aux normes telles que définies à l’article 2, point 1), du règlement (UE) no 1025/2012, le cas échéant, et aux pratiques de pointe;

l) 

les procédures de limitation, de verrouillage et d’arrêt du système et des sessions à distance après une période déterminée d’inactivité;

m) 

pour les accords de services de réseau:

i) 

l’indication et la spécification des mesures de sécurité des TIC et de l’information, des niveaux de service et des exigences en matière de gestion de tous les services de réseau;

ii) 

une indication précisant si ces services sont fournis par un prestataire intra-groupe de services TIC ou par des prestataires tiers de services TIC.

Aux fins du point h), les entités financières procèdent à un réexamen régulier des règles de pare-feu et des filtres de connexion, conformément à la classification établie en application de l’article 8, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) 2022/2554 et au profil de risque global des systèmes de TIC concernés. Pour les systèmes de TIC qui soutiennent des fonctions critiques ou importantes, les entités financières vérifient l’adéquation des règles de pare-feu et des filtres de connexion existants au moins tous les six mois.
EULAW Article 14 Sécurisation des informations en transit
-

Tickets liés

Liens
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 08
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 Access
blocks Identity Compromise / Impersonation
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Intellectual Property / Trade Secret Loss
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Long-Term Confidentiality Loss from Cryptographic Obsolescence
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Authenticity / Provenance
blocks Privacy Harm / Unauthorized Processing
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Product Defect / Design Failure
blocks Harvest Now / Decrypt Later (HNDL)
blocks Cryptographic Compromise / Cryptanalytic Capability Advancement
blocks CRY-01.01B
blocks COS-08.01B
blocks COS-08.02B
blocks SSO-07.01B
blocks SSO-07.01AS
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Identity Compromise / Impersonation
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Intellectual Property / Trade Secret Loss
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Long-Term Confidentiality Loss from Cryptographic Obsolescence
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Authenticity / Provenance
blocks Privacy Harm / Unauthorized Processing
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Product Defect / Design Failure
blocks Harvest Now / Decrypt Later (HNDL)
blocks Cryptographic Compromise / Cryptanalytic Capability Advancement
blocks CRY-01.01B
blocks COS-08.01B
blocks COS-08.02B
blocks SSO-07.01B
blocks SSO-07.01AS
is blocked by NET-37 Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks – Assessment Procedure
blocks AC-02 Account Management
blocks AC-03 Access Enforcement
blocks AC-05 Separation of Duties
blocks SI-03 Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-04 System Monitoring
blocks SI-05 Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives
blocks SI-07 Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity
blocks SI-10 Information Input Validation
blocks AC-02 [L] Account Management
blocks AC-03 [L] Access Enforcement
blocks SI-03 [L] Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-04 [L] System Monitoring
blocks SI-05 [L] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives
blocks AC-02 [M] Account Management
blocks AC-03 [M] Access Enforcement
blocks AC-05 [M] Separation of Duties
blocks SI-03 [M] Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-04 [M] System Monitoring
blocks SI-05 [M] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives
blocks SI-07 [M] Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity
blocks SI-10 [M] Information Input Validation
blocks AC-02 [H] Account Management
blocks AC-03 [H] Access Enforcement
blocks AC-05 [H] Separation of Duties
blocks SI-03 [H] Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-04 [H] System Monitoring
blocks SI-05 [H] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives
blocks SI-07 [H] Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity
blocks SI-10 [H] Information Input Validation
  • 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.