+Network Diagrams & Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs)
---+Control Applicability Boundary Graphical Representation
---+Data Action Mapping
|
Network Diagrams & Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs)
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain network architecture diagrams that:
(1) Contain sufficient detail to assess the security of the network's architecture;
(2) Reflect the current architecture of the network environment; and
(3) Document all sensitive and/or regulated data flows.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ draw.io (free, https://draw.io) or Microsoft Visio
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ draw.io (free) or Microsoft Visio
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com) or Microsoft Visio
∙ Network documentation tool (e.g., NetBox, SolarWinds NTM)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ Network topology tool (e.g., SolarWinds Network Topology Mapper, NetBox)
∙ Automated network diagram updates via discovery tools
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ Enterprise network documentation platform (e.g., NetBox, SolarWinds NTM)
∙ Automated network discovery and diagram generation
∙ Diagrams integrated with CMDB and change management
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
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with process owners to generate and maintain Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs) and network diagrams to document the flow of data to create and maintain a map of systems where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management 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 AST 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 maintain network architecture diagrams that:
(1) Contain sufficient detail to assess the security of the network's architecture;
(2) Reflect the current architecture of the network environment; and
(3) Document all sensitive/regulated data flows.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Asset Management (AST) 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 |
|
Control Applicability Boundary Graphical Representation
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure control applicability is appropriately-determined for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and third parties by graphically representing applicable boundaries.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.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
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management 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 AST 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 ensure control applicability is appropriately-determined for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and third parties by graphically representing applicable boundaries.
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.
|
|
Data Action Mapping
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to create and maintain a map of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) where sensitive and/or regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Microsoft Visio or draw.io (free, https://draw.io) for data flow diagrams
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Microsoft Visio or draw.io (free, https://draw.io)
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
∙ Documented data flow diagrams with sensitivity labels
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Microsoft Visio
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
∙ draw.io (https://draw.io)
∙ Data flow diagrams integrated with privacy impact assessments
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Microsoft Visio
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
∙ Data flow diagrams maintained in CMDB or GRC platform
∙ Automated data mapping tools (e.g., BigID, OneTrust Data Mapping)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise data flow/action mapping platform (e.g., BigID, OneTrust, Securiti.ai)
∙ Microsoft Visio / LucidChart for technical documentation
∙ Automated data lineage tools (e.g., Collibra, Alation)
∙ Data maps maintained current for regulatory compliance (GDPR Article 30)
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
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with process owners to generate and maintain Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs) and network diagrams to document the flow of data to create and maintain a map of systems where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management 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 AST 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 create and maintain a map of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Asset Management (AST) 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 4 Politique de gestion des actifs de TIC
-
|
|
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 8 Identification
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 8 4
4. Financial entities shall identify all information assets and ICT assets, including those on remote sites, network resources and hardware equipment, and shall map those considered critical. They shall map the configuration of the information assets and ICT assets and the links and interdependencies between the different information assets and ICT assets.
|
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.
|